Government review of cycling offences likely to be a ‘patch-up job’ according to Cycling UK

Housecathst wrote:

We can talk about the evidence of the case and the relative injustice which has been metered out by the gutter press when you compare it to almost any case where a motorist is involved. What does it take for a motorist to make the front page of the mail, they have to kill 6 or 8 people in one go. 

The thing that really stood out to me was that he hit her at between 12 and 14 mph. The reason we have 20mph speed limits is that pedestrians hit by cars at that speed has a 90% chance of survival, even taking in account the massive force of a ton of metal box when compared to a cyclist and their bike, both party’s were massively unlucky that day.

10-14mph, his approximated original 18mph speed is made far too much of and the fact the Met police produced a ridiculous comparison which included no thinking time at all using a modern disc braked bike (why didn't they use an old bike with chrome rims say).

If one slows to circa 10mph and a pedestrian has partially crossed and there is a clear gap you simply steer behind which is what Alliston did. That Briggs made to cross at a dangerous point putting herself at great risk in the first instance and also that of other road users (Alliston could easily have being killed instead which has happened recently) is glossed over completely. That she then stepped back into Allistons path with next to zero warning she was going to do such meant he had no chance in a normal high stress situation to brake sufficiently to avoid collision anyway.

The double standards in this case were staggering bordering criminal, the judge should be ashamed of herself showing her obvious bias and Alliston's brief/defence were an absolute disgrace.

We've seen time and time again what happens when pedestrians jump out in front of cars and the motorist despite honking their horns to warn/admonish, it's the peds fault not the motorists. Why were the rules/laws applied completely differently for Alliston and indeed for other cyclists in similar situations?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

We can talk about the evidence of the case and the relative injustice which has been metered out by the gutter press when you compare it to almost any case where a motorist is involved. What does it take for a motorist to make the front page of the mail, they have to kill 6 or 8 people in one go. 

The thing that really stood out to me was that he hit her at between 12 and 14 mph. The reason we have 20mph speed limits is that pedestrians hit by cars at that speed has a 90% chance of survival, even taking in account the massive force of a ton of metal box when compared to a cyclist and their bike, both party’s were massively unlucky that day.

10-14mph, his approximated original 18mph speed is made far too much of and the fact the Met police produced a ridiculous comparison which included no thinking time at all using a modern disc braked bike (why didn't they use an old bike with chrome rims say).

If one slows to circa 10mph and a pedestrian has partially crossed and there is a clear gap you simply steer behind which is what Alliston did. That Briggs made to cross at a dangerous point putting herself at great risk in the first instance and also that of other road users (Alliston could easily have being killed instead which has happened recently) is glossed over completely. That she then stepped back into Allistons path with next to zero warning she was going to do such meant he had no chance in a normal high stress situation to brake sufficiently to avoid collision anyway.

The double standards in this case were staggering bordering criminal, the judge should be ashamed of herself showing her obvious bias and Alliston's brief/defence were an absolute disgrace.

We've seen time and time again what happens when pedestrians jump out in front of cars and the motorist despite honking their horns to warn/admonish, it's the peds fault not the motorists. Why were the rules/laws applied completely differently for Alliston and indeed for other cyclists in similar situations?

 

All this talk of Alliston's collision speed is bullshit. If a car collided with a pedestrian and was found to have no functioning brakes the driver would be charged and rightly found culpable. Alliston would not have been charged IF his bike was LEGAL.

kevvjj wrote:

All this talk of Alliston's collision speed is bullshit. If a car collided with a pedestrian and was found to have no functioning brakes the driver would be charged and rightly found culpable. Alliston would not have been charged IF his bike was LEGAL.

Charged, sure, but you are going to have to prove to me that such a car driver would have recieved a comparable  sentence, because I really doubt it.  And I'm 100% certain it would not have attracted the same level of attention or the same aftermath with respect to demands to change the law.

Googling reveals a mixed picture with regard to sentencing, but, importantly, only one of the cases involved the victim stepping into the road in front of the vehicle, generally they involved the vehicle leaving the road or the lane.    In the one case vaguely comparable, the penalty was a fine, no jail time.

No custodial sentence at all, just a fine -

http://www.wisbechstandard.co.uk/news/faulty-brakes-driver-fined-after-f...

Three years, but the victim didn't suddenly appear in front of him, he drove into a car correctly stopped at traffic lights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/4236765.stm

Same sentence as Alliston, but speeding as well as faulty brakes, and nobody suddenly stepped in front of him -

https://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/news/southport-west-lancs/ormskirk-lo...

Roughly comparable situation with a pedestrian stepping into the road, no prison time

https://www.wigantoday.net/news/fatal-crash-lorry-had-brake-fault-1-165247

No-one killed or injured, but managed to hit a _house_ which I'm guessing didn't suddenly step out in front of him.  20 weeks, not months.

https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2017-10-05/jail-for-van-driver-who-ha...

So, charged, sure, but I don't really believe you if you are saying a motorist would have recieved the same penalty.

kevvjj wrote:

All this talk of Alliston's collision speed is bullshit. If a car collided with a pedestrian and was found to have no functioning brakes the driver would be charged and rightly found culpable. Alliston would not have been charged IF his bike was LEGAL.

That would depend on whether the non-functioning brakes were a factor in the collision. If a pedestrian stepped in front of a motor vehicle and the driver had no realistic chance of stopping or slowing enough to make a difference, regardless of the condition of the brakes, then any competent defence would argue that the brakes weren't a contributing factor.

This is why I don't understand how the prosecution was able to get away with completely ignoring thinking time in the Alliston case and the video produced by the MET police was a disgrace:

http://road.cc/content/news/228204-metropolitan-police-stopping-distance...

kevvjj wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

We can talk about the evidence of the case and the relative injustice which has been metered out by the gutter press when you compare it to almost any case where a motorist is involved. What does it take for a motorist to make the front page of the mail, they have to kill 6 or 8 people in one go. 

The thing that really stood out to me was that he hit her at between 12 and 14 mph. The reason we have 20mph speed limits is that pedestrians hit by cars at that speed has a 90% chance of survival, even taking in account the massive force of a ton of metal box when compared to a cyclist and their bike, both party’s were massively unlucky that day.

10-14mph, his approximated original 18mph speed is made far too much of and the fact the Met police produced a ridiculous comparison which included no thinking time at all using a modern disc braked bike (why didn't they use an old bike with chrome rims say).

If one slows to circa 10mph and a pedestrian has partially crossed and there is a clear gap you simply steer behind which is what Alliston did. That Briggs made to cross at a dangerous point putting herself at great risk in the first instance and also that of other road users (Alliston could easily have being killed instead which has happened recently) is glossed over completely. That she then stepped back into Allistons path with next to zero warning she was going to do such meant he had no chance in a normal high stress situation to brake sufficiently to avoid collision anyway.

The double standards in this case were staggering bordering criminal, the judge should be ashamed of herself showing her obvious bias and Alliston's brief/defence were an absolute disgrace.

We've seen time and time again what happens when pedestrians jump out in front of cars and the motorist despite honking their horns to warn/admonish, it's the peds fault not the motorists. Why were the rules/laws applied completely differently for Alliston and indeed for other cyclists in similar situations?

 

All this talk of Alliston's collision speed is bullshit. If a car collided with a pedestrian and was found to have no functioning brakes the driver would be charged and rightly found culpable. Alliston would not have been charged IF his bike was LEGAL.

My uncle (on a motorcycle) was killed by a motorist who had faulty brakes - the motorist was fined for not having a roadworthy vehicle. No consequences for killing my uncle

gmac101 wrote:

kevvjj wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

We can talk about the evidence of the case and the relative injustice which has been metered out by the gutter press when you compare it to almost any case where a motorist is involved. What does it take for a motorist to make the front page of the mail, they have to kill 6 or 8 people in one go. 

The thing that really stood out to me was that he hit her at between 12 and 14 mph. The reason we have 20mph speed limits is that pedestrians hit by cars at that speed has a 90% chance of survival, even taking in account the massive force of a ton of metal box when compared to a cyclist and their bike, both party’s were massively unlucky that day.

10-14mph, his approximated original 18mph speed is made far too much of and the fact the Met police produced a ridiculous comparison which included no thinking time at all using a modern disc braked bike (why didn't they use an old bike with chrome rims say).

If one slows to circa 10mph and a pedestrian has partially crossed and there is a clear gap you simply steer behind which is what Alliston did. That Briggs made to cross at a dangerous point putting herself at great risk in the first instance and also that of other road users (Alliston could easily have being killed instead which has happened recently) is glossed over completely. That she then stepped back into Allistons path with next to zero warning she was going to do such meant he had no chance in a normal high stress situation to brake sufficiently to avoid collision anyway.

The double standards in this case were staggering bordering criminal, the judge should be ashamed of herself showing her obvious bias and Alliston's brief/defence were an absolute disgrace.

We've seen time and time again what happens when pedestrians jump out in front of cars and the motorist despite honking their horns to warn/admonish, it's the peds fault not the motorists. Why were the rules/laws applied completely differently for Alliston and indeed for other cyclists in similar situations?

 

All this talk of Alliston's collision speed is bullshit. If a car collided with a pedestrian and was found to have no functioning brakes the driver would be charged and rightly found culpable. Alliston would not have been charged IF his bike was LEGAL.

 

My uncle (on a motorcycle) was killed by a motorist who had faulty brakes - the motorist was fined for not having a roadworthy vehicle. No consequences for killing my uncle

 

yup this very much, he was found not guilty of man slaughter and the judge said the lack of a front brake had no bearing on the conviction for W+F or the sentence that she passed. 

gmac101 wrote:

My uncle (on a motorcycle) was killed by a motorist who had faulty brakes - the motorist was fined for not having a roadworthy vehicle. No consequences for killing my uncle

My uncle crashed his motorbike into a tree while trying to avoid a drunk that stepped out in front of him - the drunk got away uninjured, my uncle spent several days in hospital.

I've nearly been knocked of my motorbike (big blue thing, noisy exhaust, headlight and hi-viz on) when some idiot ran straight into the bus lane I was in from behind a queue of people at a bus stop. The guy hit my elbow, causing me to wobble, but I managed to control it and stop in the bus lane. If he'd hit me differently, there's a good chance he might have had me off, or even pushed me into oncoming traffic!

kevvjj wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

We can talk about the evidence of the case and the relative injustice which has been metered out by the gutter press when you compare it to almost any case where a motorist is involved. What does it take for a motorist to make the front page of the mail, they have to kill 6 or 8 people in one go. 

The thing that really stood out to me was that he hit her at between 12 and 14 mph. The reason we have 20mph speed limits is that pedestrians hit by cars at that speed has a 90% chance of survival, even taking in account the massive force of a ton of metal box when compared to a cyclist and their bike, both party’s were massively unlucky that day.

10-14mph, his approximated original 18mph speed is made far too much of and the fact the Met police produced a ridiculous comparison which included no thinking time at all using a modern disc braked bike (why didn't they use an old bike with chrome rims say).

If one slows to circa 10mph and a pedestrian has partially crossed and there is a clear gap you simply steer behind which is what Alliston did. That Briggs made to cross at a dangerous point putting herself at great risk in the first instance and also that of other road users (Alliston could easily have being killed instead which has happened recently) is glossed over completely. That she then stepped back into Allistons path with next to zero warning she was going to do such meant he had no chance in a normal high stress situation to brake sufficiently to avoid collision anyway.

The double standards in this case were staggering bordering criminal, the judge should be ashamed of herself showing her obvious bias and Alliston's brief/defence were an absolute disgrace.

We've seen time and time again what happens when pedestrians jump out in front of cars and the motorist despite honking their horns to warn/admonish, it's the peds fault not the motorists. Why were the rules/laws applied completely differently for Alliston and indeed for other cyclists in similar situations?

 

All this talk of Alliston's collision speed is bullshit. If a car collided with a pedestrian and was found to have no functioning brakes the driver would be charged and rightly found culpable. Alliston would not have been charged IF his bike was LEGAL.

Personally, I'd like to know what would have happened and what the media coverage would have been like if Alliston had managed to swerve/brake so Briggs had lived but Alliston had died. I bet Alliston would still have been blamed...

brooksby wrote:

Personally, I'd like to know what would have happened and what the media coverage would have been like if Alliston had managed to swerve/brake so Briggs had lived but Alliston had died. I bet Alliston would still have been blamed...

Sadly, there was a case similar to what you describe recently.

It didn't get very much media attention at all unsurprisingly.

The Daily Mail did put together a rather malicious and inaccurate article that attempted to blame the cyclist, again unsurprisingly.

Pretty balanced view here:
http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/keen-accomplis...

Rich_cb wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Personally, I'd like to know what would have happened and what the media coverage would have been like if Alliston had managed to swerve/brake so Briggs had lived but Alliston had died. I bet Alliston would still have been blamed...

Sadly, there was a case similar to what you describe recently. It didn't get very much media attention at all unsurprisingly. The Daily Mail did put together a rather malicious and inaccurate article that attempted to blame the cyclist, again unsurprisingly. Pretty balanced view here: http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/keen-accomplis...

Horrific... was the drunk pedestrian prosecuted for anything in that instance?

PRSboy wrote:

Horrific... was the drunk pedestrian prosecuted for anything in that instance?

Yes, terrible - there was quite a lot on here about it, if you search. I know the junction well, it's on my bike commute route.

I don't think the pedestrian, Nathan Kelsell, was even breathalysed, or charged with any sort of offence, far less prosecuted for anything, despite his mate saying he walked into the road, but he didn't because he saw a cyclist coming. Mr Kelsell was also injured and insists he has no memory of the incident.

kevvjj wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

We can talk about the evidence of the case and the relative injustice which has been metered out by the gutter press when you compare it to almost any case where a motorist is involved. What does it take for a motorist to make the front page of the mail, they have to kill 6 or 8 people in one go. 

The thing that really stood out to me was that he hit her at between 12 and 14 mph. The reason we have 20mph speed limits is that pedestrians hit by cars at that speed has a 90% chance of survival, even taking in account the massive force of a ton of metal box when compared to a cyclist and their bike, both party’s were massively unlucky that day.

10-14mph, his approximated original 18mph speed is made far too much of and the fact the Met police produced a ridiculous comparison which included no thinking time at all using a modern disc braked bike (why didn't they use an old bike with chrome rims say).

If one slows to circa 10mph and a pedestrian has partially crossed and there is a clear gap you simply steer behind which is what Alliston did. That Briggs made to cross at a dangerous point putting herself at great risk in the first instance and also that of other road users (Alliston could easily have being killed instead which has happened recently) is glossed over completely. That she then stepped back into Allistons path with next to zero warning she was going to do such meant he had no chance in a normal high stress situation to brake sufficiently to avoid collision anyway.

The double standards in this case were staggering bordering criminal, the judge should be ashamed of herself showing her obvious bias and Alliston's brief/defence were an absolute disgrace.

We've seen time and time again what happens when pedestrians jump out in front of cars and the motorist despite honking their horns to warn/admonish, it's the peds fault not the motorists. Why were the rules/laws applied completely differently for Alliston and indeed for other cyclists in similar situations?

 

All this talk of Alliston's collision speed is bullshit. If a car collided with a pedestrian and was found to have no functioning brakes the driver would be charged and rightly found culpable. Alliston would not have been charged IF his bike was LEGAL.

you clearly missed the point about having another working brake! he had one recognised/legal brake otherwise could not have slowed to circa 10mph from circa 18mph, even so given the timescales involved he would not have had enough thinking and mechanical action braking time to avoid Briggs stepping back.

The Met police video using a brand new disc braked bike utilising no thinking time, no stress/panic involvement invalidates it completely and should not have being allowed to be admitted as evidence. Try braking underf duress/high stress situation for an event that unfolds a few metres in front of you and compare that to what the MET showed, it's completely different to the real world and what happens in incidents.

DaveE128 wrote:

Next priority must surely be to pass new laws to deal with men biting dogs.

Not to mention stairs, which should be held to account for many deaths and serious injuries per year...   Stair users should be made to wear helmets and carry insurance.

On a more serious note, this makes interesting reading:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statisti...

PRSboy wrote:

DaveE128 wrote:

Next priority must surely be to pass new laws to deal with men biting dogs.

Not to mention stairs, which should be held to account for many deaths and serious injuries per year...   Stair users should be made to wear helmets and carry insurance.

On a more serious note, this makes interesting reading:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statisti...

Yes, 200 people drown each year, so let’s ban water...

The cycling problem is media driven nonsense and our gutless government just follows the mob.

boxrick wrote:

It's interesting these articles about the Anti-Cycling agenda view some people have of the BBC. I wonder with a good list of examples we can get it pushed in front of the right people?

Who would the right people be?

hirsute wrote:

There were for cyclists and pedestrians

2016 2 fatal collisions

2015 3

2014 2

2013 6

2012 2

Apportionment of blame is not identified

Overall

2016 438

2015 404

2014 443

2013 398

2012 424

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras10-reported-road-...

ras10012

Clearly going after the cyclists is the main priority (even if they crossed without looking, whilst on their phone, listening to music wiht headphones and within 10m of a crossing).

The judge states that 3 cases of death were the cyclist pleaded guilty were heard in an appellate court in the last 10 years and then made a big deal about 'other' guilty cyclists of causing death (and serious injury) despite not providing any evidence to back her statement.

"Counsel’s researches have yielded only three appellate cases in the last 10 years, and only one in the recent past where death was caused by wanton or furious driving or other misconduct, R v Lambert [2008] EWCA Crim 2109, R v Hall [2009] EWCA Crim 2236, and R v Gittoes [2015] EWCA Crim 1608. This is not to say there have been no other deaths of or serious injuries caused to pedestrians by cyclists; it is only to say that no other such cases have reached the Appellate Courts. In each of the 3 cases to which I have referred the appellant had accepted his guilt" 

Lambert was cycling at high speed on a pavement and got 12 months after early guilty plea

Gittoes got 12 months after cycling on street and being warned many times and had a hugely defective bike.

Hall said he went onto the pavement to avoid being struck by a car and hit another elderly pedestrian and ghot 7 months (the poice Sgt at the time seemed to think the law/charging was fine in that case)

Indeed Charlie Alliston did far more to avoid the collision (including giving a warning as per recommendation by HC) than any of those circumstances and certainly more than most motorists who then get off scot free (if charged at all) - Helen Measures and Gail Purcell being just 2 of many hundreds, and yet was stitched up like a kipper with false/misleading 'evidence' and a clear agenda by the Met police, CPS and the media helped in spades to ensure he was never going to get a fair trial or any sense of logic/law being applied correctly.

Even the judge herself showed her bias/discrimination in the way she summed up and directed the jury to highlight/reiterate yet again that Briggs was a young mother of children though her words stated to ignore that fact. In her summing up she still makes the shouting to be a negative whilst ignoring that other road users do so all the time with their horns and that the HC states you should give a warning (the words are irrelevent because the judge states that Briggs was confused etc), she ignores that he had slowed to a very slow pace, that he was ultimately trying to avoid the collision that he did nothing different to the vast majority by simply steering around Briggs, that it was Briggs that stepped back into his path whilst he was going at a slow speed. Her ignorance, bias and discrimination is there in droves.

Why was the fact Briggs wasn't wearing hi-vis or a helmet brought up, why wasn't the braking 'evidence' ripped apart as being utter BS, why was Alliston treated massively different to most other road users who kill and seriously injure, why wasn't the fact he was only doing about 10mph (admitted by the prosecution) made more of by the defence and many other aspects brought up.

That he received a sentence at all or even had charges pressed against him shows how disparate the system is against people on bikes to everyone else using the road.

And Briggs wants to bash people on bikes more, we are bashed massively more already, we have the law applied unevenly in these cases from both sides of the coin, we are expected to have a far greater level of looking out for others than anyone else even that of people operating known killing machines weighing in excess of 1000kg at high speeds that often aren't fit to be on the road (bald tyres killing 4 cyclists) and are operated beyond recklessness.

The 'system' as it is is bent as fuck. Briggs just wants revenge, nothing more, his words re safety for everyone incl people on bikes are empty IMHO.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The 'system' as it is is bent as fuck. Briggs you're an ignoranant twunt, all you want is revenge, nothing more, your words re safety are empty as fuck!

The 'system' as it is is bent as fuck. Briggs just wants revenge, nothing more, his words re safety for everyone incl people on bikes are empty IMHO.

(edited 05/01 because BtBS toned down their original language)

I agree with you on pretty much all of this except for one item: I prefer to think (hope) that Mr Briggs genuinely is trying to make some good come out of his wife's death. He's drawn some bad conclusions and is calling for entirely the wrong actions to be taken, but I think (hope) that he means well rather than just being out for revenge...

brooksby wrote:

I agree with you on pretty much all of this except for one item: I prefer to think (hope) that Mr Briggs genuinely is trying to make some good come out of his wife's death. He's drawn some bad conclusions and is calling for entirely the wrong actions to be taken, but I think (hope) that he means well rather than just being out for revenge...

I would like to think Mr Briggs wants some good to come from his wife's death, but I can't help but feel his motivation is borne out of anger and grief, neither of which I can blame him for. However, any change in the law should not be based on an emotional response to a tragic incident.

Despite Jesse Norman's claim that the Cycle Safety Review will not be based on ‘knee-jerk reaction’ but on ‘solid evidence’, I can't help but feel that the exact opposite is happening. Firstly, the press release announcing the review states the following:

Cycle Safety Review Press Release wrote:

This will address a specific issue emerging from some of the most distressing cases seen recently... [my emphasis]

Secondly is the fact that the review will be divided into 2 parts with the first part focusing on the group that causes significantly fewer deaths or serious injuries to pedestrians when compared to motorists, despite this other gem from the press release:

Cycle Safety Review Press Release wrote:

We already have strict laws that ensure that drivers who put people’s lives at risk are punished but, given recent cases, it is only right for us to look at whether dangerous cyclists should face the same consequences.

Based on the figures presented by hirsute and the one's from the press release, these strict laws aren't working:

Cycle Safety Review Press Release wrote:

In 2015, 2 pedestrians were killed and 96 seriously injured after being hit by a bicycle. Every year more than 100 cyclists are killed and more than 3,000 seriously injured on British roads.

I suspect that this is due to the reduction in the number of road traffic police to enforce those laws. As a result, any changes to the law with regard to legislation surrounding dangerous cycling would be nothing more than paying lip service to Mr Briggs and his family.

hirsute wrote:

There were for cyclists and pedestrians

2016 2 fatal collisions

2015 3

2014 2

2013 6

2012 2

Apportionment of blame is not identified

Overall

2016 438

2015 404

2014 443

2013 398

2012 424

Possibly even more striking as to how miniscule an issue it is when you take it as a percentage

2016 0.46%

2015 0.74%

2014 0.45%

2013 1.51% (not sure what happened here, clearly cyclists went mad in '13)

2012 0.47%

And as stated, this is assuming these were even the primary cause of the incident.

To be looking to bring in new laws that take into account on average less than three quarters of one percent of the overall  volume of these types of incidents on the road seems both pointless and wasteful, the cost of getting lawyers/legal experts involved to produce the appropriate documentation etc must be pretty huge.