Thursday 31 August 2017

Legal Issues

Cycling has been in the news a lot recently, in particular there has been a lot of media attention around the case of Charlie Alliston.

In case you weren’t aware the facts of the case are that Alliston was riding on Old Street in London when he collided with Kim Briggs. Tragically Briggs was killed in the accident from a head injury. Alliston was charged with manslaughter in an unprecedented move by a prosecution that relied almost entirely on the fact that he had been riding a bike with no front brake.

The case was reported by the Guardian here in an article that uses a large amount of emotive language to lay blame firmly at the feet of the cyclist. There is no denying that Alliston should legally have had a front brake on his bike. Nor is there any question that it is a tragedy that someone was killed in the collision but there is a lot more going on around the case to look at.

Reporting of the case was widely against the cyclist, with headlines that suggested he “ploughed” into Briggs or “mowed her down”. One radio report said he had no brakes (which is legally inaccurate as the fixed rear wheel on his track bike counts as a brake). The first problem is that Alliston is not a very likable person based on what we know of his actions. The judge in the case said he showed no remorse and while the evidence that he shouted at Briggs following the accident might be put down to the heat of the moment, his decision to go on social media shortly after the incident to protest that it was in no way his fault is less defensible. However, Alliston wasn’t on trial for being a massive twat, but rather for being responsible for Briggs’ death.

There are some very good points made in this piece by a QC for the Guardian, which cover some of the legal and technical points. My concern is over the precedent this potentially sets to blame cyclists for every accident on the roads. Let’s be clear, Briggs stepped into the road less than 6.5metres in front of Alliston. He was travelling at 18mph and shouted at her to get out of the way as he swerved to avoid her. She stepped back into his path resulting in the crash. His reactions look to have been designed to make every effort not to hit her, and there is a question over how fast he might have been able to stop, safely, with a front brake. Had this been a motorist, hitting the brakes and swerving from 18mph as someone steps out a fraction of a second ahead of them would we be having the same discussion?

The prevailing attitude towards cyclists at the moment has fuelled this entire case. On the roads they are seen as law-breakers and risk-takers by a society that puts the rights of cars above all else. As has been shown time and again there are some people who do break the rules of the road, just as there are drivers and pedestrians who do the same thing. In this case there was evidence given that Alliston enjoyed watching Alley Cat videos, with the suggestion that this made him a danger. Of course these videos are exciting because of the danger, as are many forms of bike video, but is anyone suggesting that a driver who also enjoys watching films including dramatic car chases can’t separate them from real life when they are driving themselves.

The prosecution in this case dredged up archaic laws to prosecute Alliston demonstrating the rarity of fatalities from cycling accidents like this. In contrast there are clearly defined laws to legislate for causing death by driving as it happens much more regularly and never makes front page news. The result of the case takes yet another step towards the blaming of cyclists rather than encouraging more people to use it as a form of transport. How many people have now been discouraged by the risk of the consequences of an accident they may have been able to do very little about.

In my opinion Alliston should have been fined for riding an unroadworthy bike and nothing more. While he’s come across badly in the press let’s not forget that he has to live on with the knowledge that he killed someone at close quarters. The impact of his life of this tragic accident is significant even without the extra weight of the trial and potential prison term. Is it possible to really believe he took any actions that deliberately made him responsible for this death?

So what can we do as cyclists? I have said before that one way is to remain whiter than white in terms of obeying the rules of the road to be beyond reproach. It would seem that this should also go to being on the money with the way your bike is set up. The Highway Code has no grey areas around things that many people run without, including pedal reflectors for example, and riding without them may open you up to blame for any accident you may be involved in. There needs to be a wider move to see cycling as a valid method of transport with the prejudice against it removed and more people encouraged to take it up.

A

No comments:

Post a Comment