London fixed wheel cyclist Charlie Alliston sentenced to 18 months in young offenders institution

Karbon Kev wrote:

This law breaking young idiot has been given a ridiculously lenient sentence, to make more law-breaking friends and watch colour TV whilst playing playstation games, very comfortable and very cushy. I wanted to see at least 5 yrs if not more. 

 

Once again, the law in this country is an absolute joke. Justice has not taken place.

Seriously... wow, what punishment would you bestow on the majority of motorists that kill who walk free from court? 

The maximum was 2 years. His wontaness was not having a brake... I'd say it was a pretty heavy application of the law. 

bendertherobot wrote:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remar...

Worth reading in full before making any comments (for or against)

CygnusX1 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remar...

Worth reading in full before making any comments (for or against)

Good point.

Apart fromt the generally pompous tone (possibly standard in such comments) there's a weird phrasing in the sentence below which suggests that the Judge thinks that it's somehow an aggravating circumstance that the killing of Kim Briggs was carried out by the operator of (what she refers to as a "bike" and presumably means "bicycle"):

WendyJosephSentencingRemakrs wrote:

As to your culpability, you chose to ride at a speed and on a bike when you could not stop, your attitude being that everyone else would just have to get out of your way.

Am I being in unfair in interpreting this (possibly sloppily phrased) sentence this way?

As has been mentioned before:  I wholly condemn the killing of Mrs.Briggs, but the sentencing is markedly harsh compared to that typically given to car drivers.  I woudl suggest keeping a future eye on the Judge to see whether she turns a blind eye to the next motorist up before her for "failing to see" another road user.

I'm not defending Allistons actions here but...

bendertherobot wrote:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remar...

The biggest problem I find with this is that the judge seems to have had preconceptions about the victim, and the perpetrator. 

Why is it that in the cases of cyclists being killed by ignorant motorists Judges can't seem to realise that the cyclists family is ripped apart by the motorist who decided it was more important to make a phone call, or send a text, or whatever? See paragraph 10.

This kind of emotive language has no place in Judges sentencing. Why is it allowed?

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

I know this has been used before but......

 

don't upset the Applecart....

Coat time.

Back to being serious, I think this is about what he deserves given his seeming lack of remorse and 'not my fault' attitude on social media. If he'd used social media to say how sorry he was instead of playing the victim blame route then maybe he woulnd't be where he is. He set himself up for the portrayal as thrillseeker tbh and even if you didn't know you 'had' to have a front brake it should have been pretty evident that it's useful but obviously asthetics were more important.

Don't confuse my attitude to this with driving convictions though as plenty of drivers are not getting what they deserve by a long shot.

I strongly disagree with this... 

I will accept that on occasion, genuine remorse should be reflected in reducing the legnth of custodial sentences... when appropriate.

In my opinion, in this case however, his initial (note initial) lack of remorse has been factored into increasing his sentence. 

There is a difference, and to me its not how the justice system should work.

And I'd also contest just how awful this young man has been. Yes his initial comments will absolutely be seen as remorseless now in retrospect, but many of those initial comments were made when the lady was still alive, and dare I say it, made when ignorant of the law.

In his eyes he'd done nothing wrong, because a) he saw her as stepping into his path (accurate), and b) failed to realise his legal obligations regarding braking and in his failure to adhere to these made him automatically at least partially responsible. 

If you felt you were right, and they were wrong, would your first focus be around saying how sorry you are? 

Don't get me wrong, I have little time for the chap, but I am reluctant to pander to emotional responses in situations such as this. That is a dangerous game to get involved in. 

His defence team need to be given a good slapping... wait, he didn't think he needed one did he. Now we will all suffer. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

I know this has been used before but......

don't upset the Applecart....

Coat time.

Back to being serious, I think this is about what he deserves given his seeming lack of remorse and 'not my fault' attitude on social media. If he'd used social media to say how sorry he was instead of playing the victim blame route then maybe he woulnd't be where he is. He set himself up for the portrayal as thrillseeker tbh and even if you didn't know you 'had' to have a front brake it should have been pretty evident that it's useful but obviously asthetics were more important.

Don't confuse my attitude to this with driving convictions though as plenty of drivers are not getting what they deserve by a long shot.

I strongly disagree with this... 

I will accept that on occasion, genuine remorse should be reflected in reducing the legnth of custodial sentences... when appropriate.

In my opinion, in this case however, his initial (note initial) lack of remorse has been factored into increasing his sentence. 

There is a difference, and to me its not how the justice system should work.

And I'd also contest just how awful this young man has been. Yes his initial comments will absolutely be seen as remorseless now in retrospect, but many of those initial comments were made when the lady was still alive, and dare I say it, made when ignorant of the law.

In his eyes he'd done nothing wrong, because a) he saw her as stepping into his path (accurate), and b) failed to realise his legal obligations regarding braking and in his failure to adhere to these made him automatically at least partially responsible. 

If you felt you were right, and they were wrong, would your first focus be around saying how sorry you are? 

Don't get me wrong, I have little time for the chap, but I am reluctant to pander to emotional responses in situations such as this. That is a dangerous game to get involved in. 

His defence team need to be given a good slapping... wait, he didn't think he needed one did he. Now we will all suffer.

Lots of comments on here being made without any understanding that teenagers (actually, people under 25) are physically different from adults, and do not think the same.

This is also reflected in his sentencing that discounted that his lack of emotional empathy could be partly attributed to the loss of one of his parents just over a year earlier.

Instead, we get the poor widower husband (who absolutely refuses to accept that his wife walked out into the road without looking - and if they had the balls to release the CCTV the cause he is now championing would fall to pieces) now pursuing more legislation claiming that the law has failed despite the fact that it worked as expected in this case, and every cunt and their dog has come out of the woodwork spouting off against 'cyclists'.

Bollocks... I can't be fucking bothered with it any more.

[double post for some reason]

brooksby wrote:

Bez makes an interesting point about all this on his blog.   The CPS have to show that the actions of the motorist fall short of what a reasonable motorist would be expected to do (and we keep saying motorists are let off because the juries are mainly also motorists thinking 'there but the for the grace of god...').

If Mr Briggs gets his way and careless and dangerous cycling are introduced then surely the jury has to be composed of regular and frequent, exerienced even, cyclists, in order to be able to make a judgement on whether the behaviour of a cyclist is reasonable or not...  (Because we know that non-cyclists don't seem to be able to).

Where are they going to get all these available cyclists from, to sit on juries??

Hopefully not from Road.cc.

pockstone wrote:

Mrs. Briggs' death was  a tragedy,  and as I've said in a previous post, as tragic as all unnecessary road deaths. However the Law's response seems to have been different to that which we are used to seeing in Driving cases.

I am perplexed by the background to the charging of Alliston. He couldn't be charged for Causing death by dangerous cycling, as that offence does not exist. He was charged with Manslaughter instead. Why then was he also charged with causing bodily harm (in this case, death) by wanton and furious cycling ?

Is it common for drivers charged with, for example Dangerous driving, to be also charged at the same time with a lesser offence of Careless driving? And is it common for drivers charged with Causing death by dangerous/careless driving to be also charged with Manslaughter

He could have been charged with dangerous cycling, the definition of which seems to fit with his lack of a front brake, but wasn't.

He could have been charged under Construction and Use legislation, but wasn't.

As for sentencing, the guidelines for Dangerous driving allow for mitigation where the actions of the victim are in some way contributory, yet the Judge makes no reference to this in her comments on sentencing. Presumably this means that it wasn't taken into account. Why not?

If a driver is charged with Dangerous Driving they are also charged with the lesser offence (careless). So juries will be asked to consider first whether evidence supports conviction for DD and second whether it supports it for CD.

Driver would only be charged for Manslaughter in exceptional circumstances but it is possible. Its also possible to be charged with Murder if there is proof your action was deliberate and pre-meditated. Only aware of one conviction for that in recent years. Even the lad who killed the police officer on Merseyside recently avoided a murder conviction I recall. There was a gross negligence manslaughter conviction earlier this year for the tipper truck that had defective brakes in Bath. 

These are all exceptions to the rule though, just as Alliston is an exception.

It would be interesting to see if vehicle defects (e.g. no MOT, bald tyres) will be considered in future cases and see the charge be elevated to manslaughter, which to my mind would be appropriate. Might be difficult to prove that driver knew vehicle was defective though.

As to mitigation I doubt that's available under the Wanton and Furious legislation. I think the RTA enshrines mitigations as part of the Act rather than as part of sentencing guidelines.

I expect most of us have "been there" with peds stepping out, it will be interesting to see what happens with the recent Oxford St fatality and also the one on Ride London.

kil0ran wrote:

pockstone wrote:

Mrs. Briggs' death was  a tragedy,  and as I've said in a previous post, as tragic as all unnecessary road deaths. However the Law's response seems to have been different to that which we are used to seeing in Driving cases.

I am perplexed by the background to the charging of Alliston. He couldn't be charged for Causing death by dangerous cycling, as that offence does not exist. He was charged with Manslaughter instead. Why then was he also charged with causing bodily harm (in this case, death) by wanton and furious cycling ?

Is it common for drivers charged with, for example Dangerous driving, to be also charged at the same time with a lesser offence of Careless driving? And is it common for drivers charged with Causing death by dangerous/careless driving to be also charged with Manslaughter

He could have been charged with dangerous cycling, the definition of which seems to fit with his lack of a front brake, but wasn't.

He could have been charged under Construction and Use legislation, but wasn't.

As for sentencing, the guidelines for Dangerous driving allow for mitigation where the actions of the victim are in some way contributory, yet the Judge makes no reference to this in her comments on sentencing. Presumably this means that it wasn't taken into account. Why not?

If a driver is charged with Dangerous Driving they are also charged with the lesser offence (careless). So juries will be asked to consider first whether evidence supports conviction for DD and second whether it supports it for CD.

Driver would only be charged for Manslaughter in exceptional circumstances but it is possible. Its also possible to be charged with Murder if there is proof your action was deliberate and pre-meditated. Only aware of one conviction for that in recent years. Even the lad who killed the police officer on Merseyside recently avoided a murder conviction I recall. There was a gross negligence manslaughter conviction earlier this year for the tipper truck that had defective brakes in Bath. 

These are all exceptions to the rule though, just as Alliston is an exception.

It would be interesting to see if vehicle defects (e.g. no MOT, bald tyres) will be considered in future cases and see the charge be elevated to manslaughter, which to my mind would be appropriate. Might be difficult to prove that driver knew vehicle was defective though.

You clearly never owned a car.

Just because your car has a valid MOT doesn't make it roadworthy and vice versa.   All an MOT means is that on the day it was tested it was roadworthy.  

So people can be driving death traps and I know people who have in the past with valid MOTs. 

Likewise some people get their car serviced at a different time to the MOT as some parts need servicing at a different  mileages,  and if they then forget to MOT it on time their car would still be considered roadworthy.

kil0ran wrote:

As to mitigation I doubt that's available under the Wanton and Furious legislation. I think the RTA enshrines mitigations as part of the Act rather than as part of sentencing guidelines.

I expect most of us have "been there" with peds stepping out, it will be interesting to see what happens with the recent Oxford St fatality and also the one on Ride London.

Some nasty part of me hopes there are more car accidents with dumb walkers so there is a campaign to get people to look up from their damn smartphones when attempting to cross the road. 

Bluebug wrote:

Just because your car has a valid MOT doesn't make it roadworthy and vice versa.   All an MOT means is that on the day it was tested it was roadworthy.  

Doesn't even mean that. Last garage I took my car to for an MoT said they were intimidated by it and gave me a 12 month ticket without even moving it into a bay.

Bluebug wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

pockstone wrote:

Mrs. Briggs' death was  a tragedy,  and as I've said in a previous post, as tragic as all unnecessary road deaths. However the Law's response seems to have been different to that which we are used to seeing in Driving cases.

I am perplexed by the background to the charging of Alliston. He couldn't be charged for Causing death by dangerous cycling, as that offence does not exist. He was charged with Manslaughter instead. Why then was he also charged with causing bodily harm (in this case, death) by wanton and furious cycling ?

Is it common for drivers charged with, for example Dangerous driving, to be also charged at the same time with a lesser offence of Careless driving? And is it common for drivers charged with Causing death by dangerous/careless driving to be also charged with Manslaughter

He could have been charged with dangerous cycling, the definition of which seems to fit with his lack of a front brake, but wasn't.

He could have been charged under Construction and Use legislation, but wasn't.

As for sentencing, the guidelines for Dangerous driving allow for mitigation where the actions of the victim are in some way contributory, yet the Judge makes no reference to this in her comments on sentencing. Presumably this means that it wasn't taken into account. Why not?

If a driver is charged with Dangerous Driving they are also charged with the lesser offence (careless). So juries will be asked to consider first whether evidence supports conviction for DD and second whether it supports it for CD.

Driver would only be charged for Manslaughter in exceptional circumstances but it is possible. Its also possible to be charged with Murder if there is proof your action was deliberate and pre-meditated. Only aware of one conviction for that in recent years. Even the lad who killed the police officer on Merseyside recently avoided a murder conviction I recall. There was a gross negligence manslaughter conviction earlier this year for the tipper truck that had defective brakes in Bath. 

These are all exceptions to the rule though, just as Alliston is an exception.

It would be interesting to see if vehicle defects (e.g. no MOT, bald tyres) will be considered in future cases and see the charge be elevated to manslaughter, which to my mind would be appropriate. Might be difficult to prove that driver knew vehicle was defective though.

You clearly never owned a car.

Just because your car has a valid MOT doesn't make it roadworthy and vice versa.   All an MOT means is that on the day it was tested it was roadworthy.  

So people can be driving death traps and I know people who have in the past with valid MOTs. 

Likewise some people get their car serviced at a different time to the MOT as some parts need servicing at a different  mileages,  and if they then forget to MOT it on time their car would still be considered roadworthy.

kil0ran wrote:

As to mitigation I doubt that's available under the Wanton and Furious legislation. I think the RTA enshrines mitigations as part of the Act rather than as part of sentencing guidelines.

I expect most of us have "been there" with peds stepping out, it will be interesting to see what happens with the recent Oxford St fatality and also the one on Ride London.

Some nasty part of me hopes there are more car accidents with dumb walkers so there is a campaign to get people to look up from their damn smartphones when attempting to cross the road. 

I've owned more cars than bikes No MOT by default means that the car is unroadworthy and uninsured in the eyes of the law. A vehicle inspection after the accident shouldn't remove that contributing circumstance.

The logical outcome of this won't be anything that inconveniences car drivers. Expect jaywalking laws or a bunch of victim-blaming of pedestrians on phones. Peds vs drivers get even less protection from the law than cyclists.

kil0ran wrote:

I've owned more cars than bikes No MOT by default means that the car is unroadworthy and uninsured in the eyes of the law. A vehicle inspection after the accident shouldn't remove that contributing circumstance.

I  also work in the insurance industry.  That myth has gone around for years but due to court cases and complaints to the ombudman it is untrue. 

If your car is serviced regularly but you forget to do your MOT, and have an accident then the insurer can't use the fact you have no MOT to avoid paying out to you if you can prove that the car is roadworthy.  This you can do by showing the service records/receipts. 

You are also still insured as regardless they have to pay out to third parties.

kil0ran wrote:

The logical outcome of this won't be anything that inconveniences car drivers. Expect jaywalking laws or a bunch of victim-blaming of pedestrians on phones. Peds vs drivers get even less protection from the law than cyclists.

In my area until about 5 years ago teenagers use to just suddenly walk out in the middle of the road and cross it really really slowly.  As a driver you just had to stop and let them cross.  They knew as a vehicle on the road it was your job not to run them over.  (This is what Charlie Alliston didn't understand. )   If you were impatient so honked and/or shouted at them they walked slower.  

This stopped after some teenagers on separate occassions got run over by buses, van and a black taxi - vehicles that can't brake quickly. The teenagers who got run over by the buses died.

Bluebug wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

I've owned more cars than bikes No MOT by default means that the car is unroadworthy and uninsured in the eyes of the law. A vehicle inspection after the accident shouldn't remove that contributing circumstance.

I  also work in the insurance industry.  That myth has gone around for years but due to court cases and complaints to the ombudman it is untrue. 

If your car is serviced regularly but you forget to do your MOT, and have an accident then the insurer can't use the fact you have no MOT to avoid paying out to you if you can prove that the car is roadworthy.  This you can do by showing the service records/receipts. 

You are also still insured as regardless they have to pay out to third parties.

kil0ran wrote:

The logical outcome of this won't be anything that inconveniences car drivers. Expect jaywalking laws or a bunch of victim-blaming of pedestrians on phones. Peds vs drivers get even less protection from the law than cyclists.

In my area until about 5 years ago teenagers use to just suddenly walk out in the middle of the road and cross it really really slowly.  As a driver you just had to stop and let them cross.  They knew as a vehicle on the road it was your job not to run them over.  (This is what Charlie Alliston didn't understand. )   If you were impatient so honked and/or shouted at them they walked slower.  

This stopped after some teenagers on separate occassions got run over by buses, van and a black taxi - vehicles that can't brake quickly. The teenagers who got run over by the buses died.

 

 

 

Interesting - I wasn't aware of the MOT/insurance thing. Certainly recall being told when I started drving 30-odd years ago that no MOT meant no insurance. I'm guessing that it would still be an aggravating circumstance in a court case though.

From time to time on shared-use paths I've had pedestrians deliberately block my way in response to a bell ring so I'm always riding at a speed where I can stop quickly. Not a fan of riders who think buzzing past at 20mph+ on a shared-use path is acceptable, it just turns you into a close-passing driver and intimidates peds. 

I don't walk often but it amazes me how people can walk, gaze at their screen, type, and not fall over. Favourite tactic appears to be glance up briefly, check path of oncoming pedestrians, choose line, gaze back at screen. I wonder if there's been an increase in minor injuries from pedestrian-on-pedestrian collisions? Not sure if STATS19 records those...

pockstone wrote:

Mrs. Briggs' death was  a tragedy,  and as I've said in a previous post, as tragic as all unnecessary road deaths. However the Law's response seems to have been different to that which we are used to seeing in Driving cases.

I am perplexed by the background to the charging of Alliston. He couldn't be charged for Causing death by dangerous cycling, as that offence does not exist. He was charged with Manslaughter instead. Why then was he also charged with causing bodily harm (in this case, death) by wanton and furious cycling ?

Is it common for drivers charged with, for example Dangerous driving, to be also charged at the same time with a lesser offence of Careless driving? And is it common for drivers charged with Causing death by dangerous/careless driving to be also charged with Manslaughter

He could have been charged with dangerous cycling, the definition of which seems to fit with his lack of a front brake, but wasn't.

He could have been charged under Construction and Use legislation, but wasn't.

As for sentencing, the guidelines for Dangerous driving allow for mitigation where the actions of the victim are in some way contributory, yet the Judge makes no reference to this in her comments on sentencing. Presumably this means that it wasn't taken into account. Why not?

I know from previously being involved and knowing things about other court cases that have hit the headlines that the press miss out facts. Some of this is delibrate while other times they have to due to reporting restrictions.

In this case because the women died, she wasn't elderly and has a vocal husband I would say this is delibrate.

the little onion wrote:

For comparison

From road peace (here)

 

176 convictions for careless driving during the period of the report:

46 drivers were given immediate custody and 55 were given a suspended sentence.

The proportion of shorter custodial sentences (12 months and under) has declined from 80% to 54% since 2014; while those getting a longer custodial sentence has risen correspondingly.

Average length of custodial sentence has increased to 14 months, from 10.4 months in 2014.

66 guilty drivers (39%) were given a community sentence, up in absolute and percentage terms from 2014.

Relative to 2010, prison sentences (immediate and suspended) have increased, while community sentences have declined.

 

So, he would almost certainly have got a lower sentence if he was a driver.

well researched!

Scoob_84 wrote:

I don;t nwish to appear insensitive, but since being found guilty, all news reports seem to miss out the bit that Mrs Briggs was not crossing at a pedestrian crossing and seem to absolve her of any responsibility to crossing the road and not appearing to be looking out for the traffic. 

 

18 months for no front brake seems harsh.

You are not being insensitive. To me this seems like a very harsh sentence where he is being jailed for the consequences of the crime not the crime itself. As we all know, from these pages, killers of cyclists are rarely jailed because the Courts are obliged to look at the crime, not the effect of the crime.

I cycle in Central London most days; there are a minority of motorists and cyclists who break the law. However from my perspective the biggest risk to my safety is pedestrians who ignore Peilican Crossings and cross roads without looking; apart from at their phone of course.

If this Lady crossed the road without looking then she paid the ultimate price for her mistake. That doesn't absolve the cyclist from not having a front brake. However the sham science used to prove that he would have stopped if he had a front brake was outrageous and should have been thrown out. I hope he appeals this.

Scoob_84 wrote:

I don;t nwish to appear insensitive, but since being found guilty, all news reports seem to miss out the bit that Mrs Briggs was not crossing at a pedestrian crossing and seem to absolve her of any responsibility to crossing the road and not appearing to be looking out for the traffic. 

18 months for no front brake seems harsh.

Absolutely.  Just listening to the report on R4, about five minutes, blaming the cyclist 100%, not mentioning the pedestrian crossing, or that she was on her mobile phone but how difficult it is going to be to get compensation.  With all due respect, if she had been killed by a driver in those circumstances, it would appear unlikely that any damages would be payable, and the driver would have a strong case for contributory negligence.

brooksby wrote:

Says the judge, "... shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of the way."  Erm, wasn't that him trying to get the pedestrian-who'd-walked-out-into-the-road-without-noticing-him out of the way?  Would it have been better, then, if he'd stayed silent whilst attempting to avoid them?    Custodial sentence seems a bit harsh IMO, and way worse than any motorist would have received...

perhaps if he had used his brakes instead of shouting and swerving...

Darkhairedlord wrote:

perhaps if he had used his brakes instead of shouting and swerving...

It's all the rage on two wheels now if you have a camera, especially with motorbikes. If in imminent danger you now pull your clutch in and.....rev your engine, hit thing that could have been avoided if you'd braked instead, fall off and then shout 'you're going on Youtube' to the person that half the time didn't do anything that bad.

Darkhairedlord wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Says the judge, "... shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of the way."  Erm, wasn't that him trying to get the pedestrian-who'd-walked-out-into-the-road-without-noticing-him out of the way?  Would it have been better, then, if he'd stayed silent whilst attempting to avoid them?    Custodial sentence seems a bit harsh IMO, and way worse than any motorist would have received...

perhaps if he had used his brakes instead of shouting and swerving...

But he did brake, didn't he. That was why he hit her at c10mph instead of c20mph, as I understand it.  He just didn't have enough braking capacity (the front brake that would have made his bike street-legal).  He shouted as well as slowing and as well as swerving (not, instead of).