No, No More Laws…

So that nasty little scrote, Charlie Alliston was found guilty of furious driving, but cleared of manslaughter. Given that taking an illegal vehicle onto the roads where the outcome was entirely foreseeable, I am somewhat puzzled by the jury’s findings. However, that’s how our system works. What worries me though is that the victim’s widower wants a change in the law:

Matthew Briggs wants a new Death by Dangerous Cycling law after Charlie Alliston was cleared of his wife Kim’s manslaughter but convicted of a Victorian-era ‘furious and wanton driving’ charge.

No, no, no, no! The law we have is fit for purpose. Alliston took a bike onto the roads that had no front brake – in contravention of existing law. The outcome of a collision that could cause injury or death was foreseeable and the result of his wanton negligence. Manslaughter, therefore was the appropriate charge. The jury failed to convict. That they did so does not mean that the charge itself was wrong and it does not mean we need more law when the existing one suffices. All that happened here is that the prosecution failed to convince the jury of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Better Charlie Alliston gets away with it than innocents be convicted – and changing the law in order to increase the likelihood of conviction is entirely the wrong approach.

‘And out of this senseless carnage I will try and bring change in the law, and change in the attitudes. Perhaps in this way I can honour my wife.

Sorry, but no. That is the wrong reason to be changing the law and grieving relatives are the last people we should be listening to when considering such matters. You don’t honour someone by changing the law – and it will be a change for the worse as it usually is, and the law is not some sort of memorial for the dead. I have deep sympathy for Mr Briggs. I understand his anger and grief. Alliston should really be spending a decade or more behind bars rather than the two or less that he is likely to get. But, no, no changes in the law.

 

24 Comments

  1. I practised law for nearly 30 years.

    Every finder of fact, judges, and juries, is unpredictable and prone to error, being human. Even so, they mostly try very, very hard to be fair.

    But here’s the thing. Every word in every law generates at least two loopholes. Even worse, laws are written by politicians and incompetent lawyers forced to work for the government as “legislative draftsmen”. I have worked with them and their incompetence knows no bounds.

    So you are 100% right. No new laws and we could stand to repeal a bunch and leave things up to judges and juries a whole lot more. The average judge and juror are both more honest and clever than the politicians and draftsmen.

    • Re draftsmen: a legal secretary I know deplores the extensive damage done by Scottish lawyers imported by Blair (ex-Fettes) and Brown to draw up legislation in England despite having trained in a very different system – she described the eager exodus as a veritable brain drain from her native Edinburgh to the Corridors of Power.

  2. Maybe the jury was spot on.
    If he was riding on the footpath or over a zebra crossing, or pedestrian crossing through a red light, it would have been manslaughter. We’ve talked about this before and a jail sentence for furious driving is what he deserves and what could reasonably be applied.
    And you’re right about the new law.

    • I would suggest that taking an illegal and unroadworthy machine onto the roads falls within the same category as jumping red lights or a pedestrian crossing. The “I didn’t know it was illegal” defence simply doesn’t wash. Ignorance is no defence and it had no brakes for crying out loud.

      However, you and I weren’t privy to the evidence put before the jury and they have decided that he wasn’t guilty of manslaughter and I am content to accept that. I do, however, remain convinced that the CPS was right to put that charge before the court. The system worked precisely as it is supposed to.

  3. Get these 19th-century contraptions off the pavements and off the roads. They aren’t compatible with pedestrians or motor vehicles.
    We don’t play tennis or football on the streets so why allow this ‘sport’?
    As a group cyclists have got to be the least law-abiding bunch in society so why encourage more of them? The ‘New York’ theory of ‘zero tolerance’ of crime is applicable here. Allow vandals to daub walls and other vandals break windows. Broken windows and burgalars break in etc. Allow bikes to break traffic laws, riding on pavements, turning without signals, red light-running, contra-flow riding etc. and other road users do copy, (4x4s driving on pavements to pass red lights and stopped traffic, using right lane green lights to pass and turn left across stopped ‘red light’ traffic etc.).
    And yes, I did like to ride a bike, but I grew up.

  4. I sometimes wonder if the legislators who’ve brought in the existing equivalents of “Kim’s Law” have indulged the bereaved with no expectation that anyone will actually be convicted under the law. You’re right that the bereaved are in no fit state to think clearly about law or anything else for that matter.

  5. Question: I’ve just seen someone on an electric unicycle ‘streamlining’ a bus through the city streets. How does that contraption manage to stop safely? “But bikes do it, why can’t I?”

  6. Doesn’t help in the slightest that this chap is such a terrible ambassador for cyclists.

    Granted, police/prosecution established that he could have stopped had he had brakes (and he should have done), but we seem to forget that the woman killed had walked out into the road without looking. Had she done so a second or so later, he would not have been able to stop, brakes or no, and we would be having a different discussion.

    As a cyclist, I know that, in the circumstance where a pedestrian who has stepped out in front of me and I am faced with the choice of:
    – swerving out of the way of the pedestrian which could very likely get me seriously injured or killed by the car just behind me
    OR
    – ploughing on and getting both me and pedestrian (who is at fault in this scenario) mildly injured
    I will always choose to hit the pedestrian.

    I will not sacrifice my life to avoid a minor injury to someone who puts me at risk by not looking before they step into my path.

    Cyclists have to make this calculation because we really do get killed at a shockingly high rate – MUCH MUCH MUCH higher than the rate of injuries caused to pedestrians by cyclists.

    • I pretty much agree with most of this. However, the discussion about braking on the earlier Charlie Alliston thread made me aware of just how rarely I find myself having to brake hard when out cycling. I’ve actually decided that I need to find a quiet spot and practice some emergency stops because I never have to do them day to day.

        • I also read the road ahead – and would say that I much more acutely alert when riding a bike than when in a car. Unlike a motorbike that really does occupy the whole lane, a cyclist does not. This is the core of the argument – that car drivers do not, as a matter of course, give cyclists the entire lane to play with.

          Thus, in the normal course of events and with plenty of forward looking and road awareness, I know that I can be going at the speed of traffic to avoid being killed by cars passing me from behind at speed and, even if, to the best of my knowledge there is no car behind me to my right, I risk getting myself killed if I swerve further into the lane to avoid a pedestrian who steps out suddenly and without looking because cars can approach fast from behind.

          This is simply not a problem for a motorbike. The equivalent for a biker is being forced onto the opposite side of the road, in which case you have – and crucially have already had – a clear view of what’s coming and whether you can or not. A cyclists danger is from _behind_ and without warning.

          This is not simply about failure to read the road or anticipate. It is a function of the reality of the position of the cyclist, the relative speeds of traffic and the large scale failure of cars to give a cyclist the entire lane in all circumstances.

          • As a cyclist you are supposed to move to the centre of your lane if you are keeping up with the flow of the traffic. If you are a fit cyclist this happens quite regularly in an urban environment. Once the traffic speeds up you move back to the side preferably just over a metre away from the edge.

          • “Once the traffic speeds up you move back to the side preferably just over a metre away from the edge.”

            And that’s exactly where the danger is.

          • No it isn’t. If you ride too close to the edge drivers will force their way past even when there is insufficient room to overtake. You are also left with no escape route when passing vehicles get too close. Riding further out can be inconsiderate and can also result in drivers becoming impatient and forcing their way past when it isn’t safe to do so.

          • Again, I think that’s exactly my point – cyclists have a very fine balance to play. _Some_ drivers will force their way past even when you are correctly positioned on the road and, because you can and usually do a car just behind you to your right, you have nowhere to go if a pedestrian does step out without looking.

  7. A few thoughts.

    I cycle. I have also had formal training in driving and motorcycle riding. This means that I am aware of the rules of the road. I have also read books on cyclecraft and the best ways to cycle on public roads and I occasionally buff up on the newest version of the highway code. Presumably there exists a minority of cyclists who don’t drive or use a motorcycle either. Would it make sense for these people to have to do training similar to the motorcycle CBT before being allowed on the road?

    Despite the fact that there seem to be numerous idiot cyclists out there incidents of pedestrians being killed or injured by cycles seem to be pretty rare, cars vans and trucks would seem to be much more dangerous.

    There seems to be a growing problem with idiots driving while looking at smart phones. I saw another one on the way home today.

    • ” idiots driving while looking at smart phones”

      For the cyclist and in this instance, it’s the idiot pedestrian walking out into the road while looking at a smart phone.

  8. Frankly I though manslaughter was the correct charge. Taking an illegal vehicle onto the roads clearly indicates a lack of care and acceptance of the consequences of his actions. True, this idiot did not help with his incredibly dumb comments and attempts to shift blame onto a conveniently deceased victim. He is certainly going to do time for this but as you say to change laws because of the actions of a moron leads to bad law making things worse not better. I would not opine on any amendment to the law to deal with all deaths due to stupidity and selfishness on the road. He felt that the Law does not apply to him… It does…

  9. Matthew Briggs wants a new Death by Dangerous Cycling law…

    Mr Briggs, no, no, no. Go away and grieve in private for your foolish daughter; no law or lack of law compelled her to walk onto a road without looking to see if it was safe.

    We have “suicide by cop [shooting]”. I propose “suicide by smartphone” as a verdict.

Comments are closed.