Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[growingvegetables]

This is true but I think the point being made is that most of us would be cycling more sensibly and defensively in keeping with the roads we were traversing.

^^^ This.

Just listened to Mr Briggs on R4 - he made pretty much the same point, fairly and eloquently, talking about how he wanted legislation brought up to date.

[ @User13710 types faster]

 

[robjh]

Mr Briggs has just been on R4, explaining that his campaign is for cycling to be included in the Road Traffic Act. He was very restrained and dignified, given what happened.

I thought what he was saying made a good deal of sense - the creation of offences such as 'causing death by dangerous/careless cycling', thus bringing cycling legislation in this area into line with that for motoring, and thus avoiding the risk of the more serious (and hard to convict) charge of manslaughter being brought for what is a less risky activity.

Of course the alternative would be to scrap the special laws for motorists who kill, and charge them with manslaughter too, but that would likely result in fewer convictions all round.

 

[growingvegetables]

It is a complete tragedy but is no responsibility at all being put on the woman for not looking before stepping out onto the road?

Nope. She was not on trial.

Alliston was - and being held accountable for his decisions and actions, and their consequences.

 

[Venod]

I thought what he was saying made a good deal of sense - the creation of offences such as 'causing death by dangerous/careless cycling', thus bringing cycling legislation in this area into line with that for motoring

It would have made more sense if he could have been charged with dangerous/careless cycling, the prosecution would have no problem pointing out that cycling on a non roadworthy bicycle is dangerous/careless.

 

[growingvegetables]

Mr Briggs' statement - for those who missed hearing him on R4.

From the Daily Wail - I read, copied and pasted so you don't have to go there! And so you don't "get heated" about the poisonous "reporting" on the rest of the page.

"The husband of Kim Briggs has made an impassioned plea for a change in the law - and the attitude of some cyclists .....

Matt Briggs, who is a cyclist himself, called for a new offence of causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling and said: 'We all have to share these imperfect streets, let's do so with care and due regard for each other.'

He also urged retailers to do more to make clear to customers that fixed wheel bikes without proper brakes are dangerous and illegal to use on the road.

In a powerful statement he said: 'I am now determined to do what I can to prevent others from going through the heartache we have had to bear following Kim's needless death.

We need to radically change some aspects of our cycling culture. This is not a witch hunt against all cyclists (I, myself cycle in London) only the irresponsible and reckless. We all have to share these imperfect streets, let's do so with care and due regard for each other.

'The current law is outdated and has not kept pace with the huge increase in the number of people cycling and the associated increased risk of collisions, nor the attitude of some cyclists. We need to change the way the law deals with this.

'I am calling for an introduction of laws of causing Death or Serious Injury by Dangerous or Careless Cycling, thereby bringing cycling laws into line with the Road Traffic Act.

'I also want people to understand that riding any bike without two brakes is illegal and, as we have seen, potentially lethal. I want bike retailers and, in particular, courier companies to communicate clearly and forcefully that these bikes are not legal or fit for road use'.

 

[Banjo]

How many bikes have bells these days ?
Mine dont because I believe a shout is quicker and louder .

In the same situation after a collision could it be possible someone could be jailed for wilfully riding without a bell?

 

[growingvegetables]

In the same situation after a collision could it be possible someone could be jailed for wilfully riding without a bell?

No - because the legal requirement is only that the bike exit the shop door with a bell.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

How many bikes have bells these days ?
Mine dont because I believe a shout is quicker and louder .

In the same situation after a collision could it be possible someone could be jailed for wilfully riding without a bell?

No, a bell's not a legal requirement for riding on the road.

 

[DaveReading]

Wrong word. He was NOT "scapegoated".

[Pedantic? Yup . Important? Yup (imho) .]

Good luck trying to divine the CPS's reasons for proceeding with a prosecution and their choice of charge(s).

Would you settle for "he was being made an example of" ?

 

[User482]

I think that Mr Alliston's actions fell well below the standard that most of us here would advocate and practise. That, including his belligerent attitude is, I suggest, at the root of some of the opprobrium seen in this thread. There is though a gulf between best practice and illegality, and I remain to be convinced, that - Construction and Use Regulations aside - his actions were illegal. The prosecution's case seemed to hinge on expert evidence that had a front brake been fitted, then he would've avoided the collision, and that evidence seems to be in considerable doubt. Given that - at best - it was marginal as to whether he could've avoided the collision by using a front brake, then it seems to me that swerving to avoid her was a reasonable course of action. Clearly, he should've been travelling more slowly, but again that brings us back to the gap between good practice and illegality. I can't escape the feeling that he has been held to a higher standard than would be expected of a motorist in a similar situation.

Finally, an anecdote: cycling to work this morning, a pedestrian stepped off the kerb in front of me. I was travelling slowly, and have disc brakes front and rear. My instinctive reaction was to swerve round her. Food for thought?

 

[MacB]

I agree as much as this contemptible little shoot deserves a short prison sentence how many of us can honestly say having no front brake was illegal before this case?

I knew it but only from cycling forums, wouldn't have had a Scooby otherwise

 

[User482]

I agree as much as this contemptible little shoot deserves a short prison sentence how many of us can honestly say having no front brake was illegal before this case?

I did know, but at age 18? I would've known that it was a stupid idea, though.

 

[gaijintendo]

Finally, an anecdote: cycling to work this morning, a pedestrian stepped off the kerb in front of me. I was travelling slowly, and have disc brakes front and rear. My instinctive reaction was to swerve round her. Food for thought?

The day I heard about this story, someone ran between traffic across the road, finally in front of me. I didn't have anywhere to swerve to safely, and was accelerating at the time. I applied my disc brakes and made gentle contact with her. She claimed no injuries, but I had a chat with her to make sure it wasn't just the adrenaline. She was very apologetic, and I insisted she had no need to apologise, just to be more careful in the future because it's so easy to get flattened.
Very amicable.
Horrific.

 

[Yellow Fang]

I thought what he was saying made a good deal of sense - the creation of offences such as 'causing death by dangerous/careless cycling', thus bringing cycling legislation in this area into line with that for motoring, and thus avoiding the risk of the more serious (and hard to convict) charge of manslaughter being brought for what is a less risky activity.

Of course the alternative would be to scrap the special laws for motorists who kill, and charge them with manslaughter too, but that would likely result in fewer convictions all round.

Maybe bringing cycling offences into the road traffic act or creating a new offence is not necessary now there's a precedent for convicting a cyclist for 'wanton and furious driving'.

 

[User482]

I thought what he was saying made a good deal of sense - the creation of offences such as 'causing death by dangerous/careless cycling', thus bringing cycling legislation in this area into line with that for motoring, and thus avoiding the risk of the more serious (and hard to convict) charge of manslaughter being brought for what is a less risky activity.

Of course the alternative would be to scrap the special laws for motorists who kill, and charge them with manslaughter too, but that would likely result in fewer convictions all round.

I'm not so sure. A family friend was convicted of death by careless driving last year. Would you like to guess what his sentence was?