In a considered and sober article on the conviction of cyclist Charlie Alliston on a “wanton and furious driving” charge relating to the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs, Martin Porter notes the double standards in the reporting of deaths due to cars and those due to cyclists (Bike blog, 23 August). But in your news report (‘No remorse’ from death crash cyclist, says judge, 24 August), you say Alliston “mowed down” Briggs. The first result searching for “cyclist death” on theguardian.com is an article detailing in perfect detachment “the driver of a car that hit a cyclist who later died”.
It seems the Guardian has yet to take its own medicine. As recorded by the Office for National Statistics, pedestrian deaths caused by bicycles have typically numbered two or three each year; those caused by motor vehicles around 400. Perhaps the language of your reports could reflect the real dangers posed?
Jack Brennan
London
• Your report of the Charlie Alliston case stated that the manslaughter charge against the cyclist – of which he was cleared – was unprecedented. This is incorrect. In March 1900 my great-grandfather’s 56-year-old cousin, Ellen Northcroft, died after a collision with a cyclist on Kennington Road. The rider, John Vevers Buse, was charged with manslaughter and tried by jury at the Old Bailey on 30 April 1900 (justice was delivered much more swiftly in those days). He was acquitted of manslaughter as it could not be proved that he had acted unlawfully. An account of the proceedings can be found on the Old Bailey Proceedings website.
Janet Pickering
Manchester
• Having cycled 53,000 miles in central London as a courier and knowledge boy followed by about 380,000 miles driving a black cab, my experience is that a very significant proportion of pedestrians take no responsibility whatsoever for their own safety and have a massive contempt for other road users. To give one example out of hundreds if not thousands, I had a woman blundering into the path of the cab against a red light while pushing two children in a pram and talking on her mobile phone. (I braked in time). Whether on two wheels or four, I would rather be near cars, buses, lorries or a herd of sheep than London pedestrians. When I’m out cycling, the difference between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian is that, while a driver might not see me, a pedestrian will often not even look.
Graham Livingstone
East Molesey, Surrey
• I was heartened by David Shariatmadari’s reminder that cyclists are traffic too (Cyclists must realise: they are traffic too, 25 August). I wish that he had pointed out that roads are the domain of traffic (including cycles); pavements are not. It is illegal to ride a cycle on a pavement (Highways Act 1835 sec 72 & Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 sec 129).
I am frequently expected to change my trajectory when encountering a cyclist on the pavement. I fully appreciate the hazards that cyclists face in both urban and rural areas, but that does not give them carte blanche to the flout the law and use the pavement as their alternative thoroughfare.
Matthew Briggs is channelling his grief commendably into changing the law to introduce offences of “dangerous cycling” and “death by careless cycling”. It is critical that, if he is successful, it is seen that these crimes will apply to cyclists riding on pavements as well as on roads. I fear that the next fatality may occur when a cyclist hits a pedestrian who does what pedestrians do: walk on pavements.
Dr Jennifer Jones
Liverpool
• Martin Porter’s piece on the Charlie Alliston case fails to grasp the most basic facts concerning cycling within the law, and makes dispiriting reading.
The requirement for a front brake is set out in the Pedal Cycle (construction and use) Regulations 1983. Regulation 7 (1) provides that every bicycle must be equipped with at least one braking system. Alliston’s bicycle satisfied this test. However, because his saddle was more than 635mm from the ground, Alliston was also required by regulation 7 (b) to have “a braking system operating on the front wheel”. Charlie Alliston’s bike clearly didn’t satisfy that test since it had no braking system whatever.
A “fixed” rear wheel does not constitute a braking system, as the Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regulations make abundantly clear. Section 12 (b) (iii) of those regulations specifically describes “a pedal cycle which has no braking system and is specifically designed for off-road racing on enclosed tracks”, in case there is any doubt.
Mr Porter seems to be concerned that Mr Alliston has been dealt with more harshly than a motorist in a similar situation. I suspect that any motorist who removed both their hydraulic braking system and handbrake in order to rely entirely on braking from the engine while driving in central London would face charges at least as serious as Mr Alliston when they collided with a pedestrian.
Stephen Cooper
Norwich
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
