- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpgHusband of pedestrian killed by cyclist claims ministers are scared of “cycling lobby”
The husband of pedestrian killed by a cyclist in London in 2016 has raised concerns that his efforts to campaign for changes to the law to introduce harsher penalties for people on bikes who kill or injure others are being thwarted because ministers are scared of what he terms the “cycling lobby.”
Speaking to Telegraph.co.uk, Matthew Briggs, whose wife Kim died after cyclist Charlie Alliston crashed into her on Old Street, also insisted that the change to the law he is calling for “is first and foremost a legal matter.”
Because of that, he maintained that it “should not actually concern” cycling campaigners – even though the reforms he is calling for what exclusively impact upon people who ride bikes.
Briggs launched his campaign after Alliston was sentenced at the Old Bailey in 2017 to 18 months’ detention in a young offenders’ institution after being found guilty of causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving. The jury cleared him of the more serious charge of manslaughter, however.
The offence of which Alliston, then 20, was convicted is a crime under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, with a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
> London fixed wheel cyclist Charlie Alliston sentenced to 18 months in young offenders institution
Briggs is calling for cyclists to be subject to similar laws to motorists, with causing death by careless driving and causing death by dangerous driving carrying maximum jail terms, respectively, of five and 14 years.
While the Department for Transport (DfT) did hold a consultation in 2018 into reforming the law, nothing has progressed in the three years since then, with Briggs blaming issues such as Brexit and the coronavirus for taking up parliamentary time, but above all the influence of what he terms the “cycling lobby” on the government.
> Government opens dangerous and careless cycling law consultation
He said: “My concern is that the cycling lobby is too close to the government and ministers are immensely fearful of this cycling lobby.
“I was told by one minister whom I won’t name, ‘Maybe we need to wait for another death like Kim Briggs’. He added, ‘No offence’.
“But we had another death when Peter McCombie was killed in East London in 2020 when he was hit by a cyclist. But still nothing changes.”
In July, the cyclist involved in that case, Ermir Loka, was jailed for two years – the maximum available – after he was convicted of causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving.
> Cyclist who killed London pedestrian jailed for two years
“We have waited for the legal report, the consultation, the Scottish Government, for Brexit and Covid,” Briggs continued. “All these things have passed, so what exactly am I still waiting for?
“I sincerely hope it is not because the process has been hobbled by the cycling lobby because this should not actually concern them,” he added. “It is first and foremost a legal matter.”
A spokesman for the DfT told Telegraph.co.uk: “Any death on our roads is a tragedy, and though we have some of the safest roads in the world, the government is committed to making them even safer.
“We have launched a review exploring the case for specific dangerous cycling offences, and will soon publish our response.
“In addition, the Prime Minister’s ambitious Cycling and Walking Plan will deliver more continuous and direct cycling routes in towns and cities, physically separated from pedestrians and motor traffic.”
When the DfT launched its consultation in 2018, Cycling UK pointed out that the government had not yet (and three years later has still not) delivered a full review of road safety first promised in 2014, and highlighted that almost in almost all road traffic collisions that result in the death of a pedestrian, a motorist rather than a cyclist is involved.
The charity’s head of campaigns, Duncan Dollimore, said at the time: “In 2016, 448 pedestrians were killed on our roads, but only three of those cases involved bicycles. And in the last 10 years 99.4 per cent of all pedestrian deaths involved a motor vehicle.
“Whether someone is prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving is often something of a lottery, as are the resulting sentences, leaving thousands of victims and their relatives feeling massively let down by the justice system’s failure to reflect the seriousness of bad driving,” he continued.
“Adding one or two new offences specific to cyclists would be merely tinkering around the edges.
“If the government is serious about addressing behaviour that puts others at risk on our roads, they should grasp the opportunity to do the job properly, rather than attempt to patch up an area of legislation that’s simply not working,” Dollimore added.
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
- chrisonabike 1 hour 23 min ago
Another perrenial again - who is still driving with the most points (229 the current winner)? Meanwhile m'learned friend comes out to defend the...
- IanGlasgow 1 hour 35 min ago
"Polartec Power Shield RPM fabric – which has a 10,000mm hydro head to keep wet weather out, and an industry-leading breathability spec of 30,000g...
- Simon E 2 hours 6 min ago
but tomorrow they and the other shitrags masquerading as newspapers will return to screaming about cyclists, immigrants, benefit scroungers and...
- mdavidford 2 hours 38 min ago
Oxfordshire councils are quite capable of letting you down too!...
- lesterama 2 hours 41 min ago
Why not have a 5mph speed limit as part of the ETRO? Only a dick would ride fast through an otherwise pedestrianised street.
- levestane 2 hours 53 min ago
'each spoke' (single) and 'leaf spring' (made of many leaves) seems contradictory.
- PenLaw 3 hours 44 min ago
I guess Morrissey could claim it.
- wtjs 4 hours 10 min ago
I do see a lot of delivery riders (on illegal e-motorbikes) with their faces covered...
- David9694 4 hours 50 min ago
Stuff like this seems more relevant than ever after the Trump victory. sorry not a funny
- mdavidford 5 hours 13 min ago
Someone was really worked up about e-scooters.
Add new comment
85 comments
Insulate Britain (again)
Any news on a prosecution for THAT incident?
Please stop mentioning them, it confuses me every time I read that and have to work out whether it's the reviled Isolate Britain movement bringing this country to its knees to make an ideological point or the widely popular Insulate Britain movement helping us take back control of our boilers (which will now be rated in proper British Thermal Units!)
seems like a valid response to that sort of trolling of a man in grief. Even if he was persistantly hounded with "why do you want punishments for cyclists to be brought more in line with the leniency shown to drivers" it would be questionable.
I can see his point, it really doesn't make much sense to have a completely separate offence for cyclists, especially one so archaic.
However, had his Wife been killed by a motorist rather than a cyclist it's quite unlikely the perpetrator would have got a harsher sentence.
The times when a new cycling specific law would be of use are rare - it is telling that most people on this website would immediately recognise the names Briggs and Alliston. Additionally, there does not seem to be any loophole that cyclists are using to escape punishment which is a stark contrast to companies not revealing driver information and drivers getting vastly reduced sentences with excuses such as "dazzled by the sun", "didn't see them" etc.
I think Briggs should instead campaign for pedestrians to wear helmets as his wife may just have survived if her head was protected.
I'm not saying there are a huge number of such cases but given how easy it would be to sort out it seems like something that should just be done.
I do agree that we need a general overhaul of road offences and sentencing.
Some sort of review perhaps, I'm sure Burt has mentioned something about this once or twice...
I'm not against a cycling specific law per se, but from what I can tell, cyclists already get a rough deal from the MSM, so I think the net effect of such a new law would be detrimental to road safety. A better option would be introducing strict liability which would benefit pedestrians struck by cyclists and also cyclists struck by drivers which is a far more common occurrence (though I know you're not a fan of strict liability and it wouldn't affect criminal cases anyhow). Basically, the reason that there is no cycling specific law is that it's not a good use of politicians' time and it would just pander to the anti-cycling factions.
she walked out into a busy road without looking. It wouldn't have made it to court (regardless of whether it should or not) And it would have got zero lines of comment in the news - just like the 100's of unnoticed pedestrian deaths by motorists every year.
if he was fighting for pedestrian rights in general I'd support him as would many others. His grief has led him to hate a group who are not the biggest problem.
apparently 6 cyclists are killed by at fault pedestrians walking out in front of them every year according to an article on here a few years back (so double the number of peds killed by cyclists). There is zero punishment available for that btw.
"His grief has led him to hate a group who are not the biggest problem. "
This is the - somewhat unfortunate - crux of the matter.
why do they need to be tightened up, when its clear to all that the chance of conviction is higher? the sentancing is longer, with the additional possibility of a manslaughter change, which far exceeds what drivers are ever charged with.
No one ever complains that the laws on GBH need bringing up to date ... and they are part of the exact same offences against the person act as the wanton and furious cycling laws are.
That said ... by all means get rid of that and bring in a careless/dangerous cycling law, with the same access to get-outs as drivers have, and penalties handed out in the same way.
I honestly fail to see how the 1861 act can be considered less legally rigourous than those acts given its record of successful convictions and prison sentences handed out to cyclists when compared to the modern equivalents applied to drivers who kill both pedestrians and cyclists.
And I expect that is a major point in any new law. What is classed as careless and dangerous cycling going forward. Is 18 mph on a road careless or dangerous? Yes, a pavement/ shared space it is too fast, but a road? The recent death caused by the cyclist going through the red light is obviously dangerous and most cars would have been done for that. But as others have mentioned, if Aliston had a fully legally specced bike, would he have even been even arrested and charged? If a car was driven at 18 mph and collided with her, would it even have been a court case?
I'm sure Boo will pop up shortly with his list including riding in groups or on a TT bike but I would like to know if I'm cycling carelessly or dangerously by averaging 18mph on my 8 mile commute along road spaces only whilst abiding to all the road signs and traffic lights and Highway code recommendations. Or will that only be seen as that if a Pedestrian walked out on me.
I'm all for that.... provided that cyclists can then have the same excuses as drivers accepted in their defense.
All of the above have been successfully used by drivers to avoid prison sentences in relation to pedestrian/cyclist fatalities, or to avoid bans for repeated offences.
How about the laws utilised against drivers who kill are also made more legally rigorous for todays travel reality?
I just found it funny him agreeing with Rich and stating "no point in saying "What about Cars"" when Rich used the "what about cars" in his opening point.
It is hard not to have some sympathy for the guy. His wife was killed by someone who was subsequently a total d*ck about it.
But the chances are that were it a motorist, they would v likely have got a lighter sentence, despite their knowing they were in charge of a vehicle that had massively greater capacity to kill.
There is a worry to my mind that a vote-scrabbling, culture war obsessed govt would actually bring in laws that would tip the balance even further to bring even greater penalties to bear on the miniscule minority of cyclists who actually cause deaths or serious injuries, while the march towards ever broader excuses and lighter penalties for motorists who kill continues ever onward.
He was cleared of manslaughter, so it's not accurate to say that Alliston killed Kim Briggs.
no, it's fair as he was convicted of causing boldily harm (fatal head injury) by wonton and furious cycling. But even if aqquited of that too, I would say it would still be fair to say he had killed her, because by his actions she is now dead.
In the same way killer driver Helen Measures killed Denisa Perinova, despite convincing a jury of drivers that it was reasoanble to be overtaking on the wrong side of the road going round a blind bend, and then expecting peole coming the other weay not to be in her line of travel.
It might be fair to say that, but not accurate given the court verdict. Manslaughter was the charge for causing death (i.e. killing) and I'd guess (not being involved with the case or having a clue about law) that not guilty was returned due to the low expectation that cycling into a pedestrian would cause such a horrible injury. Alternatively there could be medical complications that would throw doubt on whether the collision directly caused her death a week later, though I'd agree that it certainly seems likely.
With killer Helen Measures, it's much clearer that the collision was the direct cause of death; the manner of her driving was certainly more reckless than Alliston's cycling and it beggars belief that the jury returned their verdict in the Measures case. I wonder what would have happened if Measures was charged with manslaughter instead of the driving offense.
Was he though, really? From what I read he was pretty dickish on social media in the immediate aftermath when, a) he did not know the severity of injuries suffered by Mrs Briggs, and b) he felt very much like the wronged person.
On that second point, before we all get the pitchforks out again, if a pedestrian stepped out infront of you causing you to have an accident, would you naturally be all flowers and roses about it?
One thing that struck me about the case at the time, is that whilst Mr Briggs is happy to lobby for tougher rules for cyclists, there are seemingly no thoughts on the perceived leading factor in this case, namely the unroadworthiness of Alliston's bike.
Whilst as cyclists we'll know that bikes legally need two brakes, how many of the common man / woman are aware of this and the potential repercussions? In my mind, if there are lives to be saved, this is where the difference is more likely to be made.
I'm pretty sure Mr. Briggs did go after anyone using / selling bikes without the legal brakes.
Again for anyone interested I'd highly recommend the following two articles (and the replies to some of the "whatabout" comments):
https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/21/the-charlie-alliston-case-the-real-story/
https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/25/the-alliston-case-after-the-verdict/
Particularly the number of people who are certain that equal - if not more stringent - standards are applied to motorists.
At the time of the case, I had no idea what the actual legal requirements were (but since I have never ridden a bike that didn't have cable operated front and rear brakes, my ignorance is not really an issue), so did some homework, including a trawl through eBay, where I found quite a few of those track bikes for sale.
All were looking cheap as chips and not a single one gave a warning that they were not actually road legal in the UK, even though they were all UK sellers.
I would be very much in favour of sites like that requiring sellers to include such legal restrictions or have their listings removed.
I disagree as the onus is on the end-user/cyclist to conform with laws. Those bikes are fine to ride on private land (e.g. velodromes) so they're not illegal in themselves. It's the same with private electric scooters although they have a more limited use case. I don't see why sellers should be responsible for ensuring that buyers know about relevant law - car sellers almost never go into details about road speed limits and correct fog light usage.
Also, I'd guess that a careful rider of a track bike would be very unlikely to ever get caught riding on the roads as police are unlikely to be looking out for them (e-scooters are an easier, more visible target).
Like shops or sites selling e-scooters...
But they are worse as they actively promote them as getting from A to B with shots of public routes to work.
I wonder if he himself would have found what happened less difficult to deal with, had it been a car?
Pages