London fixed-gear cyclist Charlie Alliston cleared of manslaughter of pedestrian Kim Briggs

OldRidgeback wrote:

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/

He hasn't been sentenced.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

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. 

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

barbarus wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

"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?

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?

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.

DrJDog wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

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/

He hasn't been sentenced.

True.

The BBC reported that he was advised yesterday he was likely to receive a custodial sentance which is as much as we know.

ConcordeCX wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

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. 

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

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. 

50kcommute wrote:

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

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.

skidlid wrote:

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.

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/

brooksby wrote:

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.

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:

brooksby wrote:

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.

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.

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.

burtthebike wrote:

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?

This driver had 3 illegal tyres:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1525561/Driver-fined-180-for-defective-t...

burtthebike wrote:

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?

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.

WillRod wrote:

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.

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:

WillRod wrote:

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

rogermerriman 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.

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.

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.

kie7077 wrote:

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.

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.