Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

[Albrecht]

To be fair to the article, cyclists who endanger others were described as a 'minority', and that certainly seems to sit with my anecdotes ...

My fear is that they are going to exploit it to cast an even wider net of revenue reaping out.

Is there any discussion of what else it might include?

[mjr]

I'm sure I've posted before on a thread about this broad subject, that a good first step would be to rename the various forms of manslaughter as "unlawful killing." "Manslaughter" is such a blood-curdling expression that I'm not surprised that juries sometimes have problems with it. OTOH, inquest juries seem to have little problem with a verdict of unlawful killing.

Yes. This. In theory, the new law is redundant because the situation is already illegal, but the old law has a name that now scares juries, so let's fix the actual problem instead of scapegoating cyclists... but it seems Matthew Briggs wants to scapegoat, even if he now sounds unemotional and reasonable.

[mjr]

The [Briggs] case upset me because it's going to exploited by killjoys. Bottomline was, it was the woman's own fault for jaywalking, and disregarding the cyclist's right of way, but I don't hear the Daily Heil mob clamouring for on the spot fines for jaywalkers and turning England into Bavaria.

Priority, not right of way, and the cyclist was a bit of a nit apparently unrepentant for riding a road-illegal single-brake-in-law track bike actually described by its maker as a weapon, if I recall correctly... but you are right in that there was a contribution from neither obeying the red man light nor looking properly before walking out, again if I recall accurately.

[cycle tramp]

To be fair to the article, cyclists who endanger others were described as a 'minority', and that certainly seems to sit with my anecdotes ...

My fear is that they are going to exploit it to cast an even wider net of revenue reaping out.

Is there any discussion of what else it might include?

No. The article is about rasing the penalties against those people who travel by bicycle and who cause death through their carelessness or thoughtlessness. I can't see any fault with this reasoning and it may bring better manners from a number of arrogant cycle users, that it's been my misfortune to witness

[Bonefishblues]

Not a thread to reopen the case, but you may wish to revisit its details based on your analysis (and the phrase 'hard cases make bad law')

I've never heard "hard cases" being used but I have heard "bad cases" many times, include at least one in the Lords Hansard and another from a barristers' chambers. (I won't reference the Wikipedia page as it's not a reliable source).

What am I suppose to to be looking to find?

The Griggs' case upset me because it's going to exploited by killjoys. Bottomline was, it was the woman's own fault for jaywalking, and disregarding the cyclist's right of way, but I don't hear the Daily Heil mob clamouring for on the spot fines for jaywalkers and turning England into Bavaria.

The Briggs case - the woman who was killed was Mrs Briggs, so out of respect can we remedy that.

This is not about 'killjoys' as you put it, this is about remedying an ancient and anachronistic area of law whereby a law originally written for horse riders in the mid C19th still has to be used in the 2020s prosecute riders whose standard of riding, as Charlie Alliston's was found to, falls so far below the standard expected of a rider exercising reasonable care toward other more vulnerable road users that it results in death. It also means that the tariff which can be applied is way lower than offences for motor vehicles driven in the same manner causing death*

The Alliston prosecution was not hard or 'bad' if you prefer. Despite the emotion attached it was quite clear, and the verdict (not appealed) reflected this, as did the sentence applied, which was towards the higher end of the 2 year maximum available.

There's no "right of way', only priority, and whilst Mrs Briggs crossed contrary to a red signal the Jury found that Mr Alliston's cycling fell so far below that which was expected and appropriate (in that he continued, without slowing, towards Mrs Briggs, simply shouting a foul expletive towards her, who, shocked, moved back into his path and was struck and killed) determining that he was guilty. Having priority does not absolve a road user of having to care for other road users, particularly those more vulnerable than themselves. To assert any different makes life awfully difficult when a car does similar to a pedestrian, or cyclist.

*We can debate, and likely agree that it is insufficiently applied in that scenario, but that's another thread.

[Stevek76]

It's fairly well established in case law, even before the recent highway code changes/clarifications that pedestrians basically have priority in nearly all circumstances short of jumping out infront of people. You cannot hit a pedestrian who is established in the carriageway regardless of whatever any advisory signal was showing.

In terms of the 5 deaths in 2019, that was very much an outlier year. 1-3 is more representative of a 'typical' year.

I agree with the comments on unlawful killing and made some comments to that effect in my consultation response when the safety review happened a few years back.

[slowster]

I remember that case.

Was she or was she not on her mobile phone?

Charlie Alliston made that claim to police when he was interviewed. At the trial under cross-examination he admitted that it was not true.

What frustrated me just as much is that all ire was turned on the cyclist on the road where they should be, and nothing was picked up about pedestrians jaywalking onto the road. The cyclist had the right of way as the lights were green, and the woman could have avoided danger by using a pedestrian crossing less than ten metres away.

I remember general opinion was he was badly or not represented at all and even if he had had brakes, he would have been unlikely to have avoid her. In short, that it was her fault.

If he had had a front brake and used it, the collision speed would have been significantly reduced, and Mrs Briggs might not have been killed. Instead, he did not even slow down using leg braking and maintained his speed. The fact that he twice shouted "Get the f@@@ out of my way" indicated he had enough time either to take evasive action to prevent the collision or to slow down and collide at a much lower speed.

[Albrecht]

he continued, without slowing, towards Mrs Briggs, simply shouting a foul expletive towards her, who, shocked, moved back into his path and was struck and killed

That's interesting because I did not know it, but asked precisely what that same phenomenon was, in a post above. I've seen it happen more than once, and even got knocked off once coming round a corner when a pedestrian did precisely the same (I couldn't have braked but swung out wider to miss them, if they'd kept on going in their chosen direction there wouldn't have been a collision).

You fudged one fact though, the woman didn't "cross contrary to a red signal", she jaywalked a short distance away from a pedestrian crossing, something else which most of us will see daily in a city with pedestrians taking a diagonal shortcut rather than walking a few additional metres, so there would be a stronger argument to say, "if only she'd used the nearby pedestrian crossing rather than stepped out onto a business street, she would still be alive today".

Again, there's a high degree of culpability on her behalf.

Now, there, two other factors come into play, one which I remember from my motorcycling days, and that is the theory that motorists don't 'see' motorcyclists and account for their speed prior to a collision, because what the see is the outline of a pedestrian which the brain calculates at walking speed. I'd put in a guess that a similar phenomenon was at play here, e.g. that if she saw him, she did not perceived him at traveling at 18mph.

(Fun facts, males can run at an average speed of 8 mph and women at 6.5 mph, however, people running for their lives, not for recreational purposes, can run at an average speed of 12 mph. The fastest recorded running speed, clocked by Usain Bolt, was 27.78 mph).

The second falls on the cyclist, a tendency to go where you're fixated upon or staring it, e.g. in a critical situation people tend to freeze up or the advice to look around a corner to where you want to go. However, I've not seen the CCTV so I've no idea if the rider attempted evasive manoeuvres, e.g. to ride behind her which she then screwed up by walking backwards into him.

And, sorry, but a) 'right of way' versus 'priority' is just pedantic semantics, and b) in the run up to an obvious collision, there's just not the time for "please" and "thank you" manners, whereas as simple, single syllable, Anglo-Saxon instructions, comprising mainly of hard consonants, work very well.

I don't hold the judges opinion to mean very much. Ours is an adversarial system, there was already a full blown moral panic going on, and my recollection is that the young man didn't have expert legal representation. I remember one legal expert's opinion being published that calculated, given the speed and distances, brakes wouldn't have made any difference.

I think the husband just can't come to terms that his wife died due to her own negligence, doing what they would have both chided their children for doing - running into the road rather than using the nearest pedestrian crossing - and is looking for someone else to blame for it.

He needs/needed therapy more than we need more laws and fines, and my prediction is that more laws and fines are going to be bundled into this reaction to pacify the baying anti-cyclist hounds, e.g. Tory voting, taxi driving, Daily Express readers.

[Pete Owens]

What everyone is forgetting is that Aliston was treated far more harshly than the driver of a motor vehicle would have been under the exact same circumstances. And that a charge of causing death by dangerous is both harder to prove and treated less severely than the offences he was actually charged with. So what Shapps is actually calling for is for cyclists to be treated with the same leniency as motorists.

Imagine Aliston was driving a car at 18mph when he hit and killed a pedestrian that stepped into their path. There is no way a charge of manslaughter would even be considered (He was charged and cleared of that) so then we come to the causing death by dangerous charge - again this is extremely unlikely because in order to prove that you need to prove that the driving leading up to the collision was so poor that it was obvious to other road users and would have resulted in a charge of dangerous driving had it been witnessed by a police officer. There is no way a speed of 18mph would be considered in any way excessive (excessively cautions perhaps)

So what we are actually talking about is a charge of causing death by driving without due care. And again I think a charge would actually be unlikely, but even if charged and convicted it would have been at the lower end of the scale and probably not a custodial sentence - more like a large fine and points on the licence.

So we really shouldn't concern ourselves about a press release that is extremely unlikely to become law and will apply to a tiny number of cases. What would be more productive would be to argue for drivers to be subject to the laws that Aliston was prosecuted with and use the precedent of his case to establish that driving vehicles (whether or not powered by motors) at speeds in excess of 18mph in built up areas is wanton and furious.

[Stradageek]

So we really shouldn't concern ourselves about a press release that is extremely unlikely to become law

I agree with the analysis in your post Pete but sadly (to re-iterate my previous post); this is such an easy vote winner that I can still see this moribund government forcing it through

[thirdcrank]

It's important to be aware that English criminal law treats mens rea the "guilty mind" as fundamental in serious offences. But this is often difficult to prove and arguably increasingly so. IMO, a significant part of the prosecution evidence in the Alliston case tended to show mens rea:eg inadequate brakes; shouting abuse at the pedestrian; and above all, taking to social media. Put another way, had he been riding a bike with proper brakes which he had used; had any shouted warning not been abusive; and had he not taken to social media in the way he did; then it's hard to see a prosecution case. All this was covered in much more detail in the original thread.

Re "anachronism" it cuts both ways. At the time of the Alliston case, the 1861 offence was treated with some derision in that thread, even though it was - and remains - the current law. If that offence is to be abolished, then there's likely to be some sort of replacement. Law reforms grinds slow and fine, administered as it is by our learned friends. I'm pretty sure I posted somewhere, that the group working on the revision of the Offences Against the Person Act had recommended the preservation of the "furious driving" offence before the Alliston case made it more controversial.

[cycle tramp]

So we really shouldn't concern ourselves about a press release that is extremely unlikely to become law

I agree with the analysis in your post Pete but sadly (to re-iterate my previous post); this is such an easy vote winner that I can still see this moribund government forcing it through

I think it might help if certain bicycle users did not give ammunition which in turn would be used against the rest of us. Certainly there was a thread on 'on the road' where a road was closed, but the footway remained open. Here it was mentioned that cyclists rode the footway 'nearly knocking down' a pedestrian who was also using it, and then rather than stop to apologise, were simply abusive to them and cycled on..

..that pedestrian could have been anyone including a columnist for a newspaper or have links with a newspaper, hey - they might even be part of some judicial law review or even know someone who is.

Does the Mail target model scale railway enthusiasts? Does the Express target gardeners? Or stamp collectors. Probably because there's nothing to target.

This is not the first instance I've experienced of this and touring the Isle of Wight sometime ago, spoke to a nice couple and their dog, who were abused in a similar way by a cyclist for daring to be on a shared cycle footway. I made sure I gave the dog alot of attention and listen to their grievances and they actually said at the time 'We wish more cyclists were like you'.

Speaking personally I am sure that many road users dislike the additional mental effort involved in overtaking me. But the stake holders within cycling in all its many forms, need to work to get the message out there, that if that is to be thought of as a problem or difficulty then let it be the only problem or difficulty that riding a bicycle causes.

[Bonefishblues]

he continued, without slowing, towards Mrs Briggs, simply shouting a foul expletive towards her, who, shocked, moved back into his path and was struck and killed

That's interesting because I did not know it, but asked precisely what that same phenomenon was, in a post above. I've seen it happen more than once, and even got knocked off once coming round a corner when a pedestrian did precisely the same (I couldn't have braked but swung out wider to miss them, if they'd kept on going in their chosen direction there wouldn't have been a collision).

You fudged one fact though, the woman didn't "cross contrary to a red signal", she jaywalked a short distance away from a pedestrian crossing, something else which most of us will see daily in a city with pedestrians taking a diagonal shortcut rather than walking a few additional metres, so there would be a stronger argument to say, "if only she'd used the nearby pedestrian crossing rather than stepped out onto a business street, she would still be alive today".

Again, there's a high degree of culpability on her behalf.

Now, there, two other factors come into play, one which I remember from my motorcycling days, and that is the theory that motorists don't 'see' motorcyclists and account for their speed prior to a collision, because what the see is the outline of a pedestrian which the brain calculates at walking speed. I'd put in a guess that a similar phenomenon was at play here, e.g. that if she saw him, she did not perceived him at traveling at 18mph.

(Fun facts, males can run at an average speed of 8 mph and women at 6.5 mph, however, people running for their lives, not for recreational purposes, can run at an average speed of 12 mph. The fastest recorded running speed, clocked by Usain Bolt, was 27.78 mph).

The second falls on the cyclist, a tendency to go where you're fixated upon or staring it, e.g. in a critical situation people tend to freeze up or the advice to look around a corner to where you want to go. However, I've not seen the CCTV so I've no idea if the rider attempted evasive manoeuvres, e.g. to ride behind her which she then screwed up by walking backwards into him.

And, sorry, but a) 'right of way' versus 'priority' is just pedantic semantics, and b) in the run up to an obvious collision, there's just not the time for "please" and "thank you" manners, whereas as simple, single syllable, Anglo-Saxon instructions, comprising mainly of hard consonants, work very well.

I don't hold the judges opinion to mean very much. Ours is an adversarial system, there was already a full blown moral panic going on, and my recollection is that the young man didn't have expert legal representation. I remember one legal expert's opinion being published that calculated, given the speed and distances, brakes wouldn't have made any difference.

I think the husband just can't come to terms that his wife died due to her own negligence, doing what they would have both chided their children for doing - running into the road rather than using the nearest pedestrian crossing - and is looking for someone else to blame for it.

He needs/needed therapy more than we need more laws and fines, and my prediction is that more laws and fines are going to be bundled into this reaction to pacify the baying anti-cyclist hounds, e.g. Tory voting, taxi driving, Daily Express readers.

I didn't fudge, I misremembered a detail of a couple of years ago - but which is not material to the case as it was tried.

The important distinction between Priority and 'Right of Way' is not 'pedantic semantics'. You have NO 'right of way' if someone is in your way, irrespective of your introduction of the concept of their 'jaywalking' - also one that doesn't exist in the UK.

She crossed the road. He was coming. He saw her, evidenced by his shouting abuse - twice. He failed to slow when he should have done, he failed to take evasive action. He killed her when he could have avoided doing so. He was criminally reckless. He was jailed.

Those are the facts, established in evidence.

I listened carefully to the case put by her widower yesterday and his testimony and motives were the very antithesis of the way you portray them. It might me helpful if you listened to the clip before you ascribe them to him.

[Mike Sales]

Does the Mail target model scale railway enthusiasts? Does the Express target gardeners? Or stamp collectors. Probably because there's nothing to target.

Gardeners, modellers and philatelists do not expect to share the road with motors.
The roads are often overcrowded by cars and lorries etc., and it is easier to blame us for this than think about the real problem.
And they have to slow down because of bikes. It's obvious we are the cause of the problem.
Besides, we are fit and green so they have to find reasons to excuse their own sins.

[pwa]

Not a thread to reopen the case, but you may wish to revisit its details based on your analysis (and the phrase 'hard cases make bad law')

I've never heard "hard cases" being used but I have heard "bad cases" many times, include at least one in the Lords Hansard and another from a barristers' chambers. (I won't reference the Wikipedia page as it's not a reliable source).

What am I suppose to to be looking to find?

The Griggs' case upset me because it's going to exploited by killjoys. Bottomline was, it was the woman's own fault for jaywalking, and disregarding the cyclist's right of way, but I don't hear the Daily Heil mob clamouring for on the spot fines for jaywalkers and turning England into Bavaria.

The Briggs case - the woman who was killed was Mrs Briggs, so out of respect can we remedy that.

This is not about 'killjoys' as you put it, this is about remedying an ancient and anachronistic area of law whereby a law originally written for horse riders in the mid C19th still has to be used in the 2020s prosecute riders whose standard of riding, as Charlie Alliston's was found to, falls so far below the standard expected of a rider exercising reasonable care toward other more vulnerable road users that it results in death. It also means that the tariff which can be applied is way lower than offences for motor vehicles driven in the same manner causing death*

The Alliston prosecution was not hard or 'bad' if you prefer. Despite the emotion attached it was quite clear, and the verdict (not appealed) reflected this, as did the sentence applied, which was towards the higher end of the 2 year maximum available.

There's no "right of way', only priority, and whilst Mrs Briggs crossed contrary to a red signal the Jury found that Mr Alliston's cycling fell so far below that which was expected and appropriate (in that he continued, without slowing, towards Mrs Briggs, simply shouting a foul expletive towards her, who, shocked, moved back into his path and was struck and killed) determining that he was guilty. Having priority does not absolve a road user of having to care for other road users, particularly those more vulnerable than themselves. To assert any different makes life awfully difficult when a car does similar to a pedestrian, or cyclist.

*We can debate, and likely agree that it is insufficiently applied in that scenario, but that's another thread.

I don't doubt that in this particular case the person killed played a contributory role in her own demise, and I would want that to be taken into account. Whether it was, I don't know. But the cyclist did a number of things that facilitated the collision, and for that he required an appropriate charge that is currently absent in law. Unless "manslaughter" is considered an appropriate charge, and for some reason it isn't.