Cyclist 'knocked over and killed woman'

[Chippy_Tea]

He was on a fixed wheel track bicycle with no front brake which is illegal on our roads yet blames here for the crash, i hope he serves a few years in jail so he can think about the lives he has ruined.

On the forum he described how their heads collided and hers "ricocheted" into his, the trial heard.
He wrote: "It is a pretty serious incident so I won't bother saying she deserved it. It was her fault but she did not deserve it."

A cyclist who knocked over and killed a woman posted on online forums the crash was "her fault", the Old Bailey heard.
Charlie Alliston, of Trothy Road, Bermondsey, was 18 when he allegedly hit Kim Briggs while going 20mph in central London in February 2016.
Mrs Briggs, 44, suffered brain injuries, including two skull fractures and died in hospital days later.
In what is believed to be a legal first, Mr Alliston, now 20, is on trial for manslaughter, which he denies.
He also denies causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving.
HR consultant Mrs Briggs, of Lewisham, south London, had been on her lunch break when the crash happened.
'Not my fault'
The jury heard Alliston had been riding a "fixie" - a fixed wheel track bicycle with no front brake used by track racing cyclists - which is not legal on the road without modification.
A few days after the incident in Old Street, Shoreditch, Mr Alliston posted a comment online, claiming he had tried to warn Mrs Briggs but that she had "ignored me" and "stopped dead" in his path, the court heard.
The jury was told he wrote: "I feel bad due to the seriousness of her injuries but I can put my hand up and say this is not my fault."

On the forum he described how their heads collided and hers "ricocheted" into his, the trial heard.
He wrote: "It is a pretty serious incident so I won't bother saying she deserved it. It was her fault but she did not deserve it."
He went on to claim in the forum Mrs Briggs had been on her mobile phone at the time of the incident, the court heard.
Jurors at the Old Bailey were shown CCTV footage of the collision on 12 February and were told the defendant had been riding a black PlanetX carbon frame fixed rear pedal cycle.
That type of bike is more commonly seen racing at the Olympic velodrome, jurors were told.
If Mr Alliston had been riding a bike with proper brakes, he would have been able to avoid the collision with Mrs Briggs, prosecutor Duncan Penny QC said.
The trial continues.
BBC

 

[Gunge]

Bloody cyclists, menace to society.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Bloody cyclists, menace to society.

While i would not say that about all cyclists in this case the badge fits.

.

 

[dad_of_jon]

Bloody cyclists, menace to society.

not quite gunge we save using fossil fuels so there's more for you to burn :lol:

 

[Saisonator]

Bloody cyclists, menace to society.

As much as this cyclist comes across as a horrible little rat, there are a lot more people killed by ignorant and selfish motorists.

 

[Leon103]

If he was driving a car and hit someone then it is never manslaughter, how is cycling a bike any different

 

[Chippy_Tea]

If he was driving a car and hit someone then it is never manslaughter, how is cycling a bike any different

Its not, if you killed someone because your car brakes didn't work and your car was not legally entitled to be on the road you would be charged with manslaughter?

.

 

[Gunge]

not quite gunge we save using fossil fuels so there's more for you to burn :lol:

Didn't think of that... thanks!

 

[Ajhutch]

This is an interesting blog on the case which this week saw the cyclist sentenced to 18 months. Note he was eventually found not guilty of manslaughter but was convicted under an old statute. The blog deals with the disparity between the law as it applies to drivers and cyclists, and considers at a theoretical level the complaint which is routinely made by cyclists that drivers are often not perceived to be punished "enough" when cyclists are injured or killed. The blog is somewhat technical but well worth a read.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/20/some-thoughts-on-charlie-alliston-and-death-on-the-roads/

For what it's worth, and I say this as a cyclist myself, on the basis of what has been presented in the media during this case I absolutely believe that this cyclist deserved the punishment he was given. I try my level best when cycling to stick to the rules and ride sensibly. Of course I'd be lying if I said I'd never skipped a red light at a pedestrian crossing when there's been nobody around or ridden on a footpath to get past a line of traffic, but I know the risk I'm taking when I do that and the responsibility I'd face if something went wrong. I guess this guy is facing that responsibility now.

 

[Ken L]

Deaths of pedestrians on the pavement when hit by cyclists and by car drivers:
2006: 3 killed by cyclists. 233 killed by car drivers.
2007: 6 killed by cyclists. 267 killed by car drivers.
2008: 3 killed by cyclists. 247 killed by car drivers.
2009: 0 killed by cyclists. 141 killed by car drivers.
2010: 2 killed by cyclists. 123 killed by car drivers.

Total: 14 killed by cyclists. 1011 killed by car drivers.

In almost every case, the cyclist/driver will have killed people through recklessness, riding/cycling whilst unfit to do so or through failure to undertake basic safety maintenance.
With such a huge disparity in numbers, why is the cyclist story getting coverage at all?

I commute by bike and use roads, canal towpaths and mixed use footpaths. I've never hit a pedestrian on a footpath, I have hit two pedestrians (both on phones) who have just stepped into the road in the city centre (both were fine) and I had one idiot who thought it would be funny to jump out in front of me on a canal towpath. Unfortunately for him, he was drunk and rather misjudged his timing, jumping out less than two meters in front of me. Somehow, I managed to throw the bike to one side so he didn't get hit by any metalwork but I did hit him with my shoulder and his head whipped forward on impact loosening several of my teeth - one of which I subsequently lost. He flew! I went back the following day and worked out that I hit him so hard that he was knocked back almost 7m - most of it airborne. He could easily have killed both of us but fortunately, we both walked away, although he probably had several broken ribs for his stupidity.

 

[terrym]

With such a huge disparity in numbers, why is the cyclist story getting coverage at all?.

I suggest that this story was considered newsworthy due to the arrogance of the rider, plus interest in the only legal mechanism that appears to be available for prosecuting him given the severity of the outcome, and which for me is clearly inappropriate.
If this young man had been riding in full control with all the legal bits and bobs on his bike to allow him to do it, the woman might still be alive and we wouldn't be talking about it.
What may come out of this incident is the possibility that the law will be changed to reflect cyclist's responsibilities in a 21st century road environment, and in my view that can't be bad, and really that's nothing to do with other road users who have their own generally fit for purpose legal framework in place.

 

[MyQul]

I suggest that this story was considered newsworthy due to the arrogance of the rider, plus interest in the only legal mechanism that appears to be available for prosecuting him given the severity of the outcome, and which for me is clearly inappropriate.
If this young man had been riding in full control with all the legal bits and bobs on his bike to allow him to do it, the woman might still be alive and we wouldn't be talking about it.
What may come out of this incident is the possibility that the law will be changed to reflect cyclist's responsibilities in a 21st century road environment, and in my view that can't be bad, and really that's nothing to do with other road users who have their own generally fit for purpose legal framework in place.

The statute books may be changed but I wonder how effective it will be. You only have to look a the law and motorists using mobile phones. I dont think the new laws for that have changed motorists behavior one iota. What change in the law will "reflect cyclist's responsibilities' or change their behaviour I wonder?

 

[Dexter101]

He came across terribly and i think cyclists riding fixed wheel bikes need to realise that you might not need fromt brakes everyday but you miggt need it someday. Especially in cities.

On the flip side,the culture in the UK sees bikes as a recreation not a functional mode of transport. Cars dont look for them or give them space on the road even the government dont provide suitable road facilities bikes. I remember cycling in denmark a few years ago and everything is designed with bikes, cars and pedestrians in mind. Pedestrians shouldnt be stepping out in front of any traffic. Its just a shame that it was a knob rather than a responsible rider and she might not have lost her life.

 

[terrym]

The statute books may be changed but I wonder how effective it will be. You only have to look a the law and motorists using mobile phones. I dont think the new laws for that have changed motorists behavior one iota. What change in the law will "reflect cyclist's responsibilities' or change their behaviour I wonder?

Laws are there to give the legal system the means to prosecute and should reflect our current social situation. The deterrant factor is only part of this consideration. The mobile phone law is a modern law but even its recent increased penalties clearly do not deter people from using their phones, and society will sooner or later need to decide whether the penaties should be further increased and/or the means provided to increase the rate of detection or things left as they are.
In the subject case of the cyclist, the law used to prosecute is 150 years old, and in my view needs to be replaced by a framework that reflects modern road conditions, with legal outcomes to match in the event of an infringement. Whether a new or updated law would act as a deterrant to all cyclists is entirely a different matter, but hopefully it would provide a more sound and sensible basis for sentencing.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

With such a huge disparity in numbers,

There were 31 million cars registered in the U.K in 2016 and 1.5 million cyclists ride here every day so when you look at both figures to pedestrians killed they are not actually that far apart and you have to take into consideration being hit by a car is far more likely to result in the death of a pedestrian than being hit by a cycle.

why is the cyclist story getting coverage at all?

Because he was riding a bike that should not have been on the road, imagine if someone removed the brakes from one axle of a car then killed someone while driving it, i imagine they would be as much coverage as this lad has got for riding a bike that should not have been on the road.

.

 

[MyQul]

Laws are there to give the legal system the means to prosecute and should reflect our current social situation. The deterrant factor is only part of this consideration. The mobile phone law is a modern law but even its recent increased penalties clearly do not deter people from using their phones, and society will sooner or later need to decide whether the penaties should be further increased and/or the means provided to increase the rate of detection or things left as they are.
In the subject case of the cyclist, the law used to prosecute is 150 years old, and in my view needs to be replaced by a framework that reflects modern road conditions, with legal outcomes to match in the event of an infringement. Whether a new or updated law would act as a deterrant to all cyclists is entirely a different matter, but hopefully it would provide a more sound and sensible basis for sentencing.

I see where your coming from, and agree.

 

[MyQul]

Because he was riding a bike that should not have been on the road, imagine if someone removed their brakes from a car then killed someone while driving it i imagine they would be as much coverage as this lad has got for rifding a bike that should not have been on the road.

.

I think his remorseless attitude to killing someone all added fuel to the media flames. In fact I think this is more the reason for the media scrum than the fact his was riding an illegal bike

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I think his remorseless attitude to killing someone all added fuel to the media flames

He didn't do himself any favours.

.

 

[Linalmeemow]

He's an arrogant little ****e. Had he wound his neck in and shown a bit of remorse this would probably have blown over with him getting a slapped wrist (which wouldn't have been justice in any way, shape or form). However, any law change is going to be difficult to enforce as, unlike motor vehicle vs pedestrian accidents there often won't be any evidence to demonstrate the cyclist was riding dangerously - no smashed car, skid marks etc from which speed calculations can be made. Most times a bike won't be significantly damaged in a collision with a pedestrian so no evidence there. CCTV may not even provide usable evidence of the speed at the time of collision.

 

[simon12]

Does anyone know if the guy knew the bike was illegal, just wondering as I would have no idea what makes a bike legal but i'm not a cyclist.