"Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

[661-Pete]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ed-reports

If this is to happen, my reaction is utter dismay! Is it not enough that many are put off cycling by the perception that it's 'dangerous' - do we have to add to that the threat of a 14-year jail term if something goes awry?!

And how many deaths caused by a cyclist (other than of themselves) will such legislation prevent?

No doubt the Daily Fail-inspired bigots will have a field day with this...

[kwackers]

"Death by dangerous driving" doesn't put me (or apparently others) off driving, why should "death by dangerous cycling" put me or them off cycling?

To me it seems like common sense that the same laws apply. You talk of things going "awry", it's not about things going "awry" it's about actually being dangerous, i.e. riding a bike with no brakes and shouting rather than attempting to stop.

Bikes are ultimately safer and so it's incredibly unlikely that such a law would actually ever be used. It's really all about being seen do do something, but imo if you do something stupid then you deserve to spend some time behind bars because at the end of the day someone is dead and presumably for the charge to be brought and stick others must agree that to be the case.

[pwa]

"Death by dangerous driving" doesn't put me (or apparently others) off driving, why should "death by dangerous cycling" put me or them off cycling?

To me it seems like common sense that the same laws apply. You talk of things going "awry", it's not about things going "awry" it's about actually being dangerous, i.e. riding a bike with no brakes and shouting rather than attempting to stop.

Bikes are ultimately safer and so it's incredibly unlikely that such a law would actually ever be used. It's really all about being seen do do something, but imo if you do something stupid then you deserve to spend some time behind bars because at the end of the day someone is dead and presumably for the charge to be brought and stick others must agree that to be the case.

Yes. If you do something that kills another person you should be held accountable. I see no need for exceptions. I'd like to see horse riders, skateboarders and mobility scooter users brought in too. Not because there is anything particularly bad about those groups, but because individuals within those groups sometimes put others at risk. It is not about demonising groups, but dealing with rogue individuals. Court time will still be dominated by those who have been misbehaving with motor vehicles.

[Audax67]

You can cover the lot with the American(?) expression "vehicular homicide", if you consider a horse to be a vehicle.

[Bez]

"Filling apparent holes in legislation is an understandable desire, but it lacks circumspection in failing to see the problems with the new laws. It’s not necessarily true that an 1861 law can’t be improved upon, of course, but neither is it necessarily true that those from 1988 are better."

https://singletrackworld.com/2017/09/th ... mustnt-it/

[Bonefishblues]

You can cover the lot with the American(?) expression "vehicular homicide", if you consider a horse to be a vehicle.

Indeed - not sure why we wouldn't go this route?

[661-Pete]

My point being, there's nothing will deter people from using their cars, because it's so convenient for them, it puts them in their cocoon, their comfort zone, their 'it won't happen to me' mindset...

But there are plenty of deterrents out there to put people off cycling already - and I don't just mean the weather we've been having! I know that the risk of a miscarriage of justice is microscopically small, but potential cyclists will fear such a miscarriage. Just as they fear being knocked down by a bus or lorry - even though the risk is tiny when set against the benefits of cycling.

I agree there should be some sort of offence like 'careless cycling' carrying a statutory penalty, commensurate with the risk entailed - just as there are penalties for cycling on the pavement, or without lights at night, etc. We don't threaten pedestrians with jail terms because they stumble against another pedestrian on the pavement.

[Adnepos]

"Death by dangerous driving" doesn't put me (or apparently others) off driving, why should "death by dangerous cycling" put me or them off cycling?...

Conviction for 'Death by dangerous driving' is very difficult to achieve because juries empathise with the accused.
It would be a very different story with 'Death by dangerous cycling'. Cyclists are an 'out-group' and the jury likely lack empathy -probably quite the opposite. The Charlie Alliston jury didn't convict on the more serious charge (manslaughter) I don't know why, but could speculate.

The Guardian article was good but could have pointed out the above-described likely unfairness in the outcome of legislation that has been proposed.

[kwackers]

We don't threaten pedestrians with jail terms because they stumble against another pedestrian on the pavement.

Remember the incident not so long ago where a jogger appeared to push a woman potentially into the path of a bus?
Had she been killed do you think he'd have got away scott free?

As others above have said a single all encompassing law would be simpler and make much more sense.
If it's classed as a vehicle and it's on a highway (pavement or path) then a single law should apply.
This in theory is a better system and should calm folk who see (with some justification) cyclists as being picked on.

"One law to rule them all".

Get it inscribed on a ring and policepersons could wear it.

[pwa]

"Death by dangerous driving" doesn't put me (or apparently others) off driving, why should "death by dangerous cycling" put me or them off cycling?...

Conviction for 'Death by dangerous driving' is very difficult to achieve because juries empathise with the accused.
It would be a very different story with 'Death by dangerous cycling'. Cyclists are an 'out-group' and the jury likely lack empathy -probably quite the opposite. The Charlie Alliston jury didn't convict on the more serious charge (manslaughter) I don't know why, but could speculate.

The Guardian article was good but could have pointed out the above-described likely unfairness in the outcome of legislation that has been proposed.

I think your fear is misplaced. When I hear non-cycling car drivers commenting on cases where drivers have mounted the pavement and killed pedestrians, their anger and sense of outrage are just like mine. They don't express understanding for the defendant. But in all court cases juries are looking at incomplete evidence and are naturally reluctant to declare a defendant "guilty" unless they are really sure.

[thirdcrank]

In driving cases, it's widely believed that juries are reluctant to convict on a manslaughter charge. At the moment, in the relatively rare cases where a cyclist kills somebody, the only available charges are the causing injury by the furiously driving a carriage charge under the 1861 act (max two years impt) or manslaughter. I'm pretty sure that I've predicted before that the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 will be superseded just as soon as they can agree on how to deal with assaults more generally. I cannot see the furious driving surviving that revision so something under the Road Traffic Act will be introduced then, if not before.

Anybody new to the forum or with a short memory can read some of the arguments here:
viewtopic.php?p=1155053#p1155053

[whiskywheels]

There's absolutely no need for such a law to be introduced, and it's another example of the bigotry & hatred directed at cyclists.

According to the DfT;
Each year;

Pedestrians killed by cyclists 2

Pedestrians seriously injured by cyclists 48


Pedestrians killed by motorists 388

Pedestrians seriously injured by motorists 5138


It's quite clear where the problem lies, and where more severe penalties should be considered.

[Bonefishblues]

Last year's events illustrated the need rather well, I'd have thought. It's never a good idea to have our laws laughed at, nor for cyclists to be seen by the all-pervasive, all-powerful "car culture" I have learned so much about recently thinking that cyclists are treated in a special way.

[ianrobo]

In the past weeks we had two incidents, a driver murdering 3 kids as he ploughed into the bus shelter in London and the two young boys murdered in coventry by a drink driver and someone who had been banned.

So where was the Heil and Sun outrage at this, where was the call for banned and DD drivers to be tagged and using GPS tech which is easily available etc ?

Instead concentrate on one case where the ped walked out without due care and attention and IMHO Charlie could never have stopped regardless of bike being used. It was proved in court that ay on a normal bike you would have needed very quick reaction time.

Nah this all about attacking a minority something the right do very well and this is a Tory not labour proposition.

[Bonefishblues]

I saw plenty of outrage in those cases.