Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
- The utility cyclist
- Posts: 3607
- Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
- Location: The first garden city
Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gove ... cle-safety
what a surprise
so 5000+ road deaths and 60,000+ serious injuries on, (mostly caused by motorists) since the gov was asked to review cycle safety/justice, one high profile witch hunt and they can't wait to crack on.
what a surprise
so 5000+ road deaths and 60,000+ serious injuries on, (mostly caused by motorists) since the gov was asked to review cycle safety/justice, one high profile witch hunt and they can't wait to crack on.
- Wanlock Dod
- Posts: 577
- Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm
Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
It's reassuring that we can rely on Little Britain's government to find the solution which provides the least overall benefit to society...
-
- Posts: 15215
- Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
The Grauniad has a fairly good leader (opinion) about this
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 21 Sep 2017, 8:49am
Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
An irresponsible minority of cyclists has brought this issue to the public limelight. The responsible majority now need to voice their views. My wish is for a root and ranch change in the law to align responsibility and liability for causing death or injury, so that all road users act more responsibly at all times. The Dutch and German laws on road use are a good starting point
-
- Posts: 4659
- Joined: 2 Aug 2015, 4:40pm
Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
MichaelD123 wrote:An irresponsible minority of cyclists has brought this issue to the public limelight. The responsible majority now need to voice their views. My wish is for a root and ranch change in the law to align responsibility and liability for causing death or injury, so that all road users act more responsibly at all times. The Dutch and German laws on road use are a good starting point
Oh yes.+1
It's knee jerk reaction from a knee jerk and incompetent Govt. pandering to their Daily Mail audience.
Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
Cyril Haearn wrote:The Grauniad has a fairly good leader (opinion) about this
Why do you feel that? Where is it? What an opaque contribution
Do you mean https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... e-alliston ? It seems depressingly uncritical.
The utility cyclist wrote:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-urgent-review-into-cycle-safety
what a surprise
so 5000+ road deaths and 60,000+ serious injuries on, (mostly caused by motorists) since the gov was asked to review cycle safety/justice, one high profile witch hunt and they can't wait to crack on.
Yeah, and that cracking on seems to be focusing more on punishing cyclists, rather than appropriate punishments for those hurting walkers and cyclists like the RoadJustice campaign and RDRF have been calling for for years. I agree with Wanlock Dod - way to miss the bigger danger, DfT!
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
-
- Posts: 4339
- Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
- Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties
Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
If the Government is launching this review, then perhaps we should write to our MPs ASAP pointing out the facts and our view.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
I don't peddle bikes.
Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
MikeF wrote:If the Government is launching this review, then perhaps we should write to our MPs ASAP pointing out the facts and our view.
Good idea - http://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/vi ... ing-policy and then www.WriteToThem.com
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
-
- Posts: 4339
- Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
- Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties
Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
MichaelD123 wrote:An irresponsible minority of cyclists has brought this issue to the public limelight. The responsible majority now need to voice their views. My wish is for a root and ranch change in the law to align responsibility and liability for causing death or injury, so that all road users act more responsibly at all times. The Dutch and German laws on road use are a good starting point
Welcome to the forum.
Minority! Yes, but actually 1 person.
Adopting Dutch road designs would be much better than "laws". We don't need more laws.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
I don't peddle bikes.
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
MikeF wrote:If the Government is launching this review, then perhaps we should write to our MPs ASAP pointing out the facts and our view.
A central issue here is the "causing injury by furious cycling" offence under s 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 which has been criticised from every side of this debate. "Unfit for purpose" in the current cliché.
I thinks it's worth pointing out that this Act is just about the only surviving bit of the great law consolidation programme carried out by Charles Sprengel Greaves which led to several important pieces of legislation in 1861. It's inevitable that the effective campaigning of those concerned about personal violence will eventually lead to new legislation to deal with that. I don't think the delays here (the Larceny Act and Malicious Damage act were replaced in 1968 and 1971 respectively) have been caused by foot-dragging, but by a wish to get a contentious area of the law right, against a background of growing concern about personal violence. (Edit: The problematic offence of common assault was separately reformed about 30 years ago leaving the rest of the OAP Act 1861 unchanged, and it's not been a complete success.)
Would new legislation dealing with personal violence cover what is essentially a traffic offence? I doubt it. Might the only available bit of legislation to deal with a cyclist who injured somebody through dangerous riding somehow fall through the cracks and be forgotten? Whatever might have happened, it's not going to be overlooked now. Realpolitik.
We already have an offence of dangerous cycling and it would be relatively easy to create a couple of others such as causing death and causing serious injury. I've often suggested that lobbying is the way to achieve change even if it's not easy. It can be done: see campaigns against personal violence above. I would suggest that an argument based on "cyclists don't kill or injure many people and certainly fewer than the drivers of motor vehicles so it's unimportant" may be ineffective, and probably counter-productive.
Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
One of Briggs' points is the length of time it took to bring the case to trial.
Isn't this standard? The law moves slowly, and any serious and unusual charge will have to pass through the police, CPS and court administration. Alliston's case had many complicating factors, which couldn't be wished away by a new streamlined law. At least, not if justice was to be done.
It would probably be better for everyone if the legal system was quicker and more efficient, but I don't see why cyclists need to be singled out for speedy justice.
It took seven months for the police to charge Alliston, and a further 10 months to bring him to trial. Now 20, he was convicted on 23 August of causing bodily harm by “wanton and furious driving” but cleared of the more serious offence of manslaughter, a charge that had never previously been brought against a cyclist.
Isn't this standard? The law moves slowly, and any serious and unusual charge will have to pass through the police, CPS and court administration. Alliston's case had many complicating factors, which couldn't be wished away by a new streamlined law. At least, not if justice was to be done.
It would probably be better for everyone if the legal system was quicker and more efficient, but I don't see why cyclists need to be singled out for speedy justice.
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
bovlomov wrote:..Isn't this standard? ... .
I've no data but I suspect this was relatively swift. The system is tottering. While Mr Briggs as a bereaved relative has understandably been looking for some sort of closure, lets' remember a much bigger area of concern should be those on remand (ie unconvicted and awaiting trial) who have been refused bail so are in gaol for long periods. Even anybody who thinks that it's their own fault for getting locked up in the first place must recognise that lengthy remans in custody come at a price. Some parts of the system have been streamlined eg committal from the magistrates' court to crown court is now an administrative transfer. Also, I've commented on one of the other related threads how sentence discounts for things like "remorse" have been formalised to encourage early admissions of guilt in appropriate cases, which are one of the few ways to get any real speeding up.
Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
but I don't see why cyclists need to be singled out for speedy justice.
Because it deflects the blame/attention away from the masses to an outgroup.
What we really need to come from this unfortunate death is a review into pedestrian safety.
This case highlights two areas of concern
A) The number of unroadworthy (of the dangerous type rather than failed bulb type)
B) The idea that it is acceptable to blast your horn/swear at pedestrians who get in your way and more importantly try and intimidate them with your unabated momentum.
Much easier to blame cyclists and if you are a cyclist blame "yoof" cyclists.
I am not too bothered by this new regulation because I dont do either of those on my bike or the car, yet I know the conduct towards pedestrians is common practice by cars in my area (and I suspect cyclists too in yours).
Yma o Hyd
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
meic wrote: .. B) The idea that it is acceptable to blast your horn/swear at pedestrians who get in your way and more importantly try and intimidate them with your unabated momentum. ...
And this is why I refer to why I said "counter-productive" In my earlier post
eg We'll never get beyond the opening of any interview if we appear to condone a rider who repeatedly shouted at pedestrians to get out of his way rather than ride with pedestrian safety paramount. It may be inherently less dangerous but it's not danger-free. Recognising that gives a better chance of moving on to the bigger issue of danger from motor vehicles.
Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety
meic wrote:I am not too bothered by this new regulation because I dont do either of those on my bike or the car, yet I know the conduct towards pedestrians is common practice by cars in my area (and I suspect cyclists too in yours).
It is. Cyclists have, for the most part, accepted the hierarchy model: HGV, van, car, motorbike, moped, bicycle... ...and pedestrian. Well, at least we're not at the bottom!
EDIT: Reminds me of being in a band. In short, the one with the most power never fails to use it, and always makes sure that his instrument is louder than everyone else. The pedestrian, in this case, is the singer, struggling to be heard through an underpowered house PA. The HGV is usually a guitarist.