Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

[Cyril Haearn]

I understand in Nederland having one brake only (back-pedal) is allowed

[PDQ Mobile]

I understand in Nederland having one brake only (back-pedal) is allowed

Link?
Citation please?

I Googled but found nothing relevant.

[Psamathe]

IMV the central point is that a pedal cycle should have (front) brakes that work because it is capable of relatively high speeds and hence carries (with rider) a lot of energy.......

Which adds to my failure to understand this "urgent" knee jerk reaction. I thought there were already laws and regs requiring front brakes so is the review going to recommend what we already have?

Ian

[meic]

so is the review going to recommend what we already have?

Hopefully, yes.
The point of the review is to throw something to the baying mob until they have calmed down again.

Though I would not put it past them doing something which shows a lack of understanding but superficially hits the buzz words that even the Judge got her teeth into.
How about removing the classification of fixed gears as a brake, so that such bikes need to be fitted with both front and rear brakes in future? That should look like they are "doing something".
Possibly just done by a tightening of what exactly constitutes "an efficient braking system".

[thirdcrank]

I understand in Nederland having one brake only (back-pedal) is allowed

Link?
Citation please?

I Googled but found nothing relevant.

When this has been raised before, I'm pretty sure mjr had the legal info but it's just confusing the issue here. It's absurd to imagine that the existing regulations might be relaxed, but we could easily get some streamlining of the enforcement of the current regs.
===============================
re meic's post about efficient brakes, I have seen one post an another thread which seemed to be trying to defend the use of fixed-wheel without a front brake with illustrations of some single-pivot sidepulls. A shot in the foot IMO.

[Cunobelin]

IMV the central point is that a pedal cycle should have (front) brakes that work because it is capable of relatively high speeds and hence carries (with rider) a lot of energy.......

Which adds to my failure to understand this "urgent" knee jerk reaction. I thought there were already laws and regs requiring front brakes so is the review going to recommend what we already have?

Ian

The problem as I see it was a high profile case where someone was killed

The only recourse in law was an obscure law that is over 150 years old.

To the victim's husband and to many members of the public that is unacceptable and the question is raised why there is no more appropriate or up to date legislation in place.

I can certainly sympathise

[Psamathe]

IMV the central point is that a pedal cycle should have (front) brakes that work because it is capable of relatively high speeds and hence carries (with rider) a lot of energy.......

Which adds to my failure to understand this "urgent" knee jerk reaction. I thought there were already laws and regs requiring front brakes so is the review going to recommend what we already have?

Ian

The problem as I see it was a high profile case where someone was killed

The only recourse in law was an obscure law that is over 150 years old.

To the victim's husband and to many members of the public that is unacceptable and the question is raised why there is no more appropriate or up to date legislation in place.

I can certainly sympathise

To me the guy was prosecuted, found guilty and punished (some say harshly others say deservedly and I've not seen any "lightly" comments). So the existing laws seemed to serve their purpose in this case. So I'm a bit concerned about this case (where the law seemed to work) being given urgency over other reviews where the laws does not seem to work; and only because of the high profile of the case and campaigning by the victim's family.

Ian

[meic]

and I've not seen any "lightly" comments)

A symptom of "the bubble" I think.
If you were to stray to other media sources you would have found many such claims. It rather depends on how much the particular papers have pumped up the image of him as a really nasty piece of work.

[pwa]

and I've not seen any "lightly" comments)

A symptom of "the bubble" I think.
If you were to stray to other media sources you would have found many such claims. It rather depends on how much the particular papers have pumped up the image of him as a really nasty piece of work.

To me it is a mystery why negligent behaviour resulting in the death of another cannot be successfully tried as manslaughter if it happens on the roads. Regardless of the vehicle type. If that issue was addressed we would see lots of motorists done for manslaughter, joined by the occasional rogue cyclist.

[meic]

You could say that Alliston was successfully tried for manslaughter and he was found innocent of the charge. It would not be a success to convict the innocent.

The reason why I think he should have been found innocent is because I think it is unreasonable to assume that a medium speed cycle to pedestrian collision will result in death.
In practice it appears that juries seem to consider along similar lines that it is unreasonable to assume that not paying attention while driving will result in death.

[belgiangoth]

and I've not seen any "lightly" comments)

A symptom of "the bubble" I think.
If you were to stray to other media sources you would have found many such claims. It rather depends on how much the particular papers have pumped up the image of him as a really nasty piece of work.

To me it is a mystery why negligent behaviour resulting in the death of another cannot be successfully tried as manslaughter if it happens on the roads. Regardless of the vehicle type. If that issue was addressed we would see lots of motorists done for manslaughter, joined by the occasional rogue cyclist.

As a society we cannot afford the related job losses, prison costs and rehabilitation. As long as you can afford a 20% pay cut to fund these measures and can convince a majority of voters to do the same... even labour are not pushing for the required level of taxation.

[meic]

It isnt that expensive.
He only asked for those who actually kill to be locked up. Prison population of 85,000, round up road deaths to 2,000 per year. That means an increase of 2.3% per year of sentence. So winding up over time to 23% increase in prison population for an average 10 year sentence.
That doesnt take into account that many of those deaths are actually not going to result in an additional prison place because the guilty party killed themselves or got banged up under the existing regime.

Then there is the hoped for effect that the deterrent effect would have a dramatic effect on those road death statistics further reducing the potential increase in prison places.

[Steady rider]

I would like to see the full details of the case to try and see if the driving furiously conviction was suitable.
The law relates to when it was passed, in a sense. Bicycles have changed and today on a lightweight fixed wheel bike on smooth roads and under many circumstances, 20 mph or above are normal cycling speeds, not particularly furious cycling. If the speed was considered too high for the road or other circumstances from a cycling prospective, then a proportion of blame could be given to the cyclist.

The lack of a front brake may have made a difference, so I think a court would need to decide if this was significant and by how much. The proportion of blame could then be divided between the woman and the cyclist. A scale of proportional blame could then be applied. Not having seen the evidence in full, I would assume the woman was primarily to blame for not looking before stepping into the road, so perhaps 80% of the total blame should be allocated to the woman. It would also depend on how far away the cyclist was. This leaves 20% to the cyclist, who was riding a bike without a front brake and perhaps at a higher speed than most cyclists may have been doing in such circumstances. If for example the woman had been on a pedestrian crossing and the cyclist had the same circumstances, was unable to stop due to the lack of a rear brake, then a high proportion of blame could have been allocated to the cyclist.

Very regrettable is the woman's death, but it seems questionable to send a young man (teenager at the time), to prison.

A requirement to 'cycle or walk, with due care and attention at all times having regard to circumstances' may be one simple approach. In the event of accident, injury or death, a charge may be possible. This could apply when either a cyclist and pedestrian are injured or killed as a result or either a cyclist or pedestrian actions. The circumstances in each case would determine fault if suitable and a suitable penalty scale provided to guide punishment. Would this or similar be worth considering? A person who's dog caused a cyclist to fall may also have to be considered.

[bovlomov]

To me the guy was prosecuted, found guilty and punished (some say harshly others say deservedly and I've not seen any "lightly" comments). So the existing laws seemed to serve their purpose in this case. So I'm a bit concerned about this case (where the law seemed to work) being given urgency over other reviews where the laws does not seem to work; and only because of the high profile of the case and campaigning by the victim's family.

What I've heard from the widow is:
1) Alliston was tried under an archaic law. Much of our law is archaic, so I don't see the problem.
2) It took too long to come to trial. As discussed before, it wasn't longer than many other cases (and this was a difficult one, whatever the wording of the charge). It would be better for accused, victims, witnesses, relatives, police, and almost anyone but the lawyers, for cases to be settled quicker. There's no reason to speed up only those cases where the accused rides a bike.
3) ..something about the lack of a brake. That's already illegal.

[meic]

The proportion of blame could then be divided between the woman and the cyclist.

It was a criminal case not a civil case, they determine if a crime was committed or not. It doesnt matter if somebody else was also committing a negligent act or even a criminal one at the same time.
To the best of my knowledge not even Mr Alliston has claimed that Mrs Briggs broke any law.