- 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
- Tubeless valves
- 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
- Pub bike 1 hour 48 min ago
A similar issue occurs every day on Priory Lane that links the Roehampton Gate entrance of Richmond Park with the Upper Richmond Road: part of the...
- HLaB 5 hours 40 min ago
My older Lezyne strip drive pro (the same charging system) would do similar. I'd charge it up in the office and it would say it had full charge...
- Rendel Harris 6 hours 22 min ago
That statement is not borne out by any comparison times between the two on significant Tour or training climbs or time trials, Pogacar is faster...
- Dunnoeither 7 hours 10 min ago
Thankfully no one here lives in a country with a history of colonialism, slavery or a corrupt financial industry (the list goes on)so we can point...
- Mr Blackbird 9 hours 53 min ago
I agree. The officials probably earn a pittance or just get paid expenses. They do what they do for love of the sport. Without them the sport would...
- ubercurmudgeon 9 hours 19 min ago
Those rainbow bands look more like plaid at that speed.
- Hirsute 11 hours 11 min ago
Oxford from Emily Kerr "Anyone know anything about the THIRD major smash up on Iffley Rd in my ward in a year? "
- Miller 12 hours 27 min ago
It may not be as bad as made out but it's not great. In fact it is frustrating because bits of it are actually quite good but it repeatedly does...
Add new comment
99 comments
18 mph may well be a reasonable speed, but not if you don't have any brakes. And it clearly wasn't reasonable in this case because someone died. The jury would have considered all contributing factors together and not each one in isolation. Its an unfortunate case to say the least and for both parties.
It seems that it's a chance to send a message to "reckless" cyclists, but I can't help but think the simple message of how to cross a busy road safely has been somewhat overlooked here.
Can we keep the discussion within the bounds of reality, please. A car with *no* brakes is unlikely to get to Old Street under any circumstances, whereas a bicycle can do so relatively easily, usually without mishap (if illegally). In addition, any conviction for manslaughter would be an outcome of a jury trial, as here, the result of which is far from 100% certain. For example, if a car had malfunctioning brakes, the defence might claim it happened on that journey - "and we can all visualise that, can't we… etc?". In any case with Alliston, the jury decided it wasn't manslaughter so a claim that a different scenario would resiult in a conviction "probably with manslaughter" doesn't really enter into it.
You're right, but this one was on an "A" road ... it didn't make it as far as Old St.
I actually think some new legislation is exactly what is needed.
Something like:
Vehicular manslaughter.
Vehicular GBH.
Vehicular ABH.
Bicycles to be included alongside motor vehicles.
Anyone convicted of GBH or manslaughter would have an automatic lifetime driving ban. Sentencing to otherwise reflect their their non vehicular equivalents.
While you have to feel sympathy over the loss of a wife and mother her husband clearly hasn't come to terms with the fact that it was her actions in ignoring a nearby crossing and walking out into traffic that contributed in a very large part to her death.
Unfortunately as soon as MPs are back no doubt one of them will try to introduce such a law and as is so often said knee jerk reaction make for basd laws.
You've got to remember that a fixie has no gears or freewheel and so they are completely silent when in motion ... she may not have been looking where she was going, but she was more than likely listening for traffic. Electric cars are also completely silent, but they have a fake engine noise added so that pedestrians can hear them. What if Mrs Briggs was a blind person, or both blind and death? She isn't responsible for the accident even if she did contribute to it.
Have you ever used a bike? The pedals rotate, air is deflected, tyres are in contact with the ground, the frame and components shake. Please do sell me one of the completely silent bikes you offer though.
Is listening for traffic enough? If you're just going to step out, counting to 10 maybe equally viable...
I don't like this comment for the same reasons I don't like it when it comes up after similar events involving drivers. The cyclist should have done a better job at not hitting her at such speed, whatever the reason.
I don't think any new law is likely to come out of this. Also it does seem like there was just a element of sheer awful luck involved, in the sense that the consequences of the collision were so severe.
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.
No. The media talk about 18mph as if that was wrong, they talked about HIS lack of helmet and him having a tattoo of a skull. Even the 'wanton and furious' is wrong, negligent for said lack of brake or careless for said lack of brake.
The link has been posted several times already, why is this different to 3 bald tyres and killing people? Why is one charged with manslaughter and one given points.
As for the media, you give them much more credit than they deserve, the piece in the Guardian is the only one with balance. If it is so rare they should surely mention this, talk of how rare it is and how slow he was going on a machine statistically proven to be safer than the motor vehicle. Encourage their readership therefore to check their cars, never drive tired and focus on the risk to pedestrians of using mobile devices and being unaware of their surroundings...
Finally found a vaguely comparable case
http://www.wisbechstandard.co.uk/news/faulty-brakes-driver-fined-after-f...
Drove a car he knew had faulty brakes. And also speeding. Killed someone. Convicted of careless driving - £2000 fine and nine points on the licence, no jail time. Presumably could carry on driving immediately.
The case didn't seem to attract national media attention. In fact that local paper article seems to be the only mention of it anywhere on the web (would be helpful to know why it was only 'careless driving' not 'causing death by careless driving' but without any other source one can't tell)
As regards the faulty brakes case ... the article says that the Anti-Lock Braking System (ABS) was faulty, not that the brakes weren't working. Not all cars even have ABS and some systems will only be active below a certain speed. He was speeding before the accident, not neccessarily at the time of the accident (he was stuck behind a lorry) and it wasn't his speed that caused the accident. The car lost control when braking during an overtake when a motorcycle was spotted coming the other way. Driver definitely at fault. Tragic accident involving careless driving rather than reckless driving.
So you speed, you overtake badly, your car is not fit for the roads, you cannot see a motorbike and you kill someone. Do you want this person around your loved ones?
I'd rather he wasn't on the road, but try this one ...
So you've just finished eating a banana and you toss the peel away and it lands on the road causing a motorbike to skid killing the rider. Do you want this person anywhere near a public road? What would be a fair punishment in this case? Should judgment be based on the 'recklessness' and 'intent' of the person that threw the banana peel away, or should the judgment be based on the end result ... the death of the rider? This is the sort of dilema that the legal system has to deal with. Opinions will always be split.
Surely wanton and furious littering would cover this off...
Briggs said - “Why would you take that risk with somebody else’s life, and why would you endanger yourself?”
he should have that inscribed on her headstone - this is now a story about three idiots!
He hasn't been sentenced yet so I don't understand all complaints that cyclists are being targeted. The effing idiot killed someone yet there are people on here sticking up for him.
When a cyclist is killed we get numerous comments about victim blaming yet what are people doing on here..........double standards and it's pathetic.
Abosolutely right ... and just look at how many 'likes' some of those posts get ... not eveyone of course, and its human nature so can't blame them really.
Not at all. Bit of perspective...
Double standards, yes. Discussing contributing factors... yes.
I've probably read all/most of the comments here and the other (2?) main threads that they're on, and I don't think anyone's saying the charging/guilty verdict is extreme in itself. But compared with huge numbers of similar behaviour with a motorised vehicle/more vulnerable victim, what's wrong with highlighting the double standards in charges and guilty verdicts? And the discrepancies in reporting makes me despair of the media.
Also, there's been debate about whether she was crossing the road on her phone. There would be plenty of the same on here, and a lack of sympathy from loads of posters, if a cyclist was meandering across the road on their phone and got hit by a car.
haven't seen any disrespect or blaming her completely for it, and it certainly isn't on a par with a cyclist being rear-ended and then the driver's defence focusing on their clothes, lights or whether they were wearing a helmet. Was that discussed ANYWHERE regarding Mrs Briggs? I haven't got a clue whether she was wearing dark clothing or a helmet, which is at it should be, but that's not the case when cyclists are hit, is it?
You call it double standards, or bias: I call it redressing the balance given that cyclists seem to be despised by a sizeable section of the public and media.
I haven't seen many 'sticking up for him'. I do see plenty noting how this highlights how leniently killer drivers are treated. Double standards are exactly the issue, and the extreme level of coverage this case has had, is indeed an example of that.
I would bet money that had the guy been driving a car when this happened the same people now going on about cyclists on comments all over the web, would have been posting remarks about how the victim was partly, or even entirely, to blame, and going on about pedestrians and their mobile phone use.
Here's a question for you FK...
Would you say hiting a pedestrian in a car doing 20 mph (with working brakes) is the same level of recklessness as hiting a pedestrian on a bicycle (with no brakes) at 20 mph? Would you describe both as 'wanton and furious driving'? Are both offences equal? Both are accidents and both attempted to stop.
My point is that in the car case the on-line and media reaction would have been different _whether they had fully working brakes or not_. (the cyclist did have brakes, just not ones that were legally good enough)
There have been countless cases of motorists showing greater levels of recklessness (killing someone while speeding, or on the wrong side of the road, or having no lights, or jumping a red light, or even doing all those things at once)and getting nothing like this level of media attention. Nor the associated collective-responsibility guff.
And, to repeat myself (as you didn't seem to read the comment you are replying to), if this case had involved a driver, there would have been plenty of on-line comment from drivers trying to push the blame onto the pedestrian for not looking and stepping out so close to the oncoming vehicle.
At no point have I said this cyclist shouldn't pay a hefty legal penalty (shall wait and see what the court decides for that). It would just be nice if the same happened with motorists and if the media paid the same level of attention to those cases.
(e.g. I cite many of the BTL comments on this DM story)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3459833/Shocking-moment-Volkswag...
"Pedestrian's fault. Simple. You don't walk out in front of moving vehicles. This guy was too ill mannered to care."
"Both of them are at fault. We have a duty towards our own safety as well as others safety. Unfortunately only the driver is legally liable. Hopefully the pedestrians careless disregard will be taken into account. "
etc etc
Edit - I mean, can you honestly say, hand-on-heart, that those DM comments would have been radically different if the volkswagen had been shown to have inadequate brakes? That then none of them would have tried to point the finger at the pedestrian?
I've had a look at that Daily Mail story you referred to ... and this is only my opinion ... but I'd say the car driver was at fault because they had plenty of time to brake and avoid a collision. However, they excercised poor judgment in not doing so (they probably panicked and thought the pedestrian might move back). I see what you mean about the comments blaming the pedestrian on that page ... I don't agree with them at all. Hopefully no one died.
However, that accident was a result of poor judgment unlike the Alliston case which involved 'wanton and furious driving' along with having no brakes ... it was an accident waiting to happen.
I think the media jumped on this story because it is unusual, someone died, and covering the story helps to make others aware that track bikes are not road legal and can kill.
At least we aren't in much disagreement about that. Again, my issue is not with the court case, but with the media coverage and internet comment around it and the inconsistency thereof.
I find it really hard believe that he did not know his bike was not legal for use on the roads. He was a cycle courier and a member of a fixie forum he would have found out. I know they are not legal and I don't even ride one.
I was unaware of the exact law about brakes, so I can believe that he didn't know. However, ignorance of the law is not usually a valid defence, so it's largely irrelevant in this case.
I used to commute on a unicycle and I had no idea whether it was legal or not - it certainly didn't have any brakes, but the crucial point is that you're not likely to be out of control on a unicycle (or at least not for long).
I have to admit I don't know the law on brakes for a unicycle but I have also never ridden one. Although I don't ride a fixie now I did for a year and I learned the law regarding them then. If he did not know the law then he had not done his due dilligence.
Due diligence and unicycle riding don't usually go hand in hand and a disregard for safety is often required. I used to do some of my riding on pavements and I still don't know how that is regarded in law. (The closest I came to hitting anyone was when a very young child came running at me, but I just stepped off and came to an immediate halt - quick reactions).
So without Google, what's the law?
Pages