"Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: "Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

Postby reohn2 » 7 Mar 2018, 5:30pm

661-Pete wrote:.........As for a revenge-based system of justice - that has no place here. Some other, less enlightened, parts of the world, maybe - but not here.

Whilst I agree with you entirely,ask a crosssection of society and I think you'll find the hang 'em and flog 'em element has a worrisome following amongst the UK public.
-----------------------------------------------------------

thirdcrank
Posts: 30856
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: "Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

Postby thirdcrank » 7 Mar 2018, 6:15pm

I'm unclear where revenge came into this, but it's there, even if it's dressed up in another word such as retribution, in any legal system which includes punishment.

kwackers
Posts: 15464
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: "Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

Postby kwackers » 7 Mar 2018, 6:50pm

661-Pete wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:One of the objections to extending the offence to cover causing death is that it's a waste of time because it so rarely happens.
The precise point. When there is populist clamour for stiffer punishments, one wonders whether the motive is deterrence - or revenge? As a deterrent, what is it deterring? The one-in-a-million case where a cyclist riding dangerously actually kills a road user?

Nobody ventures out in their car with the aim of killing someone so when they do what exactly was the effect of having a law against it?

If you wouldn't be happy removing such offences from your average motorist then what you're after is a special case for cyclists which begs the question: Why should cyclists who commit essentially the same offence with the same results be immune from prosecution?

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 9949
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: "Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

Postby 661-Pete » 7 Mar 2018, 6:54pm

kwackers wrote:Why should cyclists who commit essentially the same offence with the same results be immune from prosecution?

I'm not saying they should. All right, if such legislation is introduced, let it at least be balanced with measures designed to encourage people to take up cycling. And I don't mean, necessarily, 'infarstructure'... although that helps a bit.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).

kwackers
Posts: 15464
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: "Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

Postby kwackers » 7 Mar 2018, 7:20pm

661-Pete wrote:I'm not saying they should. All right, if such legislation is introduced, let it at least be balanced with measures designed to encourage people to take up cycling. And I don't mean, necessarily, 'infarstructure'... although that helps a bit.

Indeed.
As I said above, this is a mere distraction. A fight that isn't worth fighting and morally can't be won.
Personally I'd like to see a legally defined minimum safe overtaking distance.

But in the meantime in the last few days I've noticed a vast increase in the number of cyclists although I suspect the sun is the prime mover there.

User avatar
Paulatic
Posts: 5730
Joined: 2 Feb 2014, 1:03pm
Location: 24 Hours from Lands End

Re: "Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

Postby Paulatic » 9 Mar 2018, 8:09am

Looks like the Daily Fail was Maybe jumping the gun. Reporting wishful thinking rather than facts. Incidentally the Barrister who conducted the “death by dangerous cycling” law review for DfT is a former director of the Freight Transport Association. :(
https://www.bikebiz.com/.amp/news/cycle ... ssion=true
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life

https://stcleve.wordpress.com/category/lejog/
E2E info

thirdcrank
Posts: 30856
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: "Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

Postby thirdcrank » 9 Mar 2018, 9:52am

And as I also said above, I agree with kwackers about the distraction. IMO the other distraction is all the spin about policies to promote active travel, including cycling. The only thing that's green is the naïveté of anybody who believes a word of it. And while I'm on with the character map, it's déjà vu all over again. And again. Jesse Norman's voice is insignificant compared with that of his illustrious namesake, but in any case, he's just another junior transport minister stuck with the cycling portfolio hoping for promotion at the first reshuffle.

IMO, the thing which would make the biggest difference would be some sort of return to more widespread enforcement of road traffic law. All we have at the minute is cameras, detailed investigations into fatal/ potentially crashes and a lot of social media releases, intended to convince those who are easily convinced that something is being done.

The so-called bad driving offences are defined by current driving standards and everybody knows that crashing is no longer a big deal. ie it's not necessarily below the standard. In general, action is only taken if there's strong evidence of some other aggravating factor such as alcohol or distraction by using a mobile phone. So why is it any different if somebody is killed? It's dawned on me that this is why the Metropolitan Police decided not to submit a file to the CPS following the death of Michael Mason: they don't generally prosecute drivers who shunt other vehicles so why act differently just because somebody was killed?

FWIW, a private prosecution following a police decision to take no action seems unlikely to succeed because the jury will know - having had it laid on with a trowel - that the police had "cleared" the defendant of wrongdoing. It's hardly perverse of a jury to take that line.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3607
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: "Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

Postby The utility cyclist » 10 Mar 2018, 1:33am

This makes for extremely interesting and very important reading.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ety-review

STATS19 reported road casualty data reveals that between 2011 and 2016 there were a total of 2,491 collisions between cyclists and pedestrians that resulted in a pedestrian casualty. Of these, 20 resulted in a pedestrian fatality and 546 resulted in serious injury to the pedestrian.
"While acknowledging that the figures do not indicate whether there was fault on the part of the cyclist, the report concludes that this is “not an insignificant number.”

Is incorrect. The "not an insignificant number" refers to cyclist-pedestrian collision numbers with reference to the cyclist-motor vehicle collisions. This is in 15.4.

The report does apportion fault in cyclist-pedestriin collisions on page 26, footnote 30:

"For completeness, not all of these fatalities were attributed to cyclist error:“15/20 fatalities were assigned at least one contributory factor, with 6/20 assigning a factor to the pedestrian only, 5/20 assigning a factor to both the pedestrian and the cyclist, and 4/20 assigning a factor to the cyclist only.”

pete75
Posts: 13696
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: "Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

Postby pete75 » 10 Mar 2018, 8:49am

reohn2 wrote:
661-Pete wrote:.........As for a revenge-based system of justice - that has no place here. Some other, less enlightened, parts of the world, maybe - but not here.

Whilst I agree with you entirely,ask a crosssection of society and I think you'll find the hang 'em and flog 'em element has a worrisome following amongst the UK public.


Certainly seems the case on this forum with many complaints about "light" sentences and calls for stiffer penalties.

kwackers
Posts: 15464
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: "Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

Postby kwackers » 10 Mar 2018, 9:20am

pete75 wrote:Certainly seems the case on this forum with many complaints about "light" sentences and calls for stiffer penalties.

How about 'fair' sentencing? Or consistent sentencing?

It's pretty simple really, if you think a dangerous cyclist that kills someone should be given a lenient sentence then there's no argument that the same shouldn't apply to a motorist.
It's a perfectly valid argument that having to live with having killed someone is punishment enough so these folk deserve pity and help rather than fines and prison sentences - they are after all 'normal' people that simply made a bad decision.

In a lot of respects cyclists get off pretty lightly anyway since it's almost impossible to stop someone cycling no matter how dangerous they are. And from what I remember pedestrian / cyclist collisions per mile are well above the average for pedestrian / motor vehicle so it's not like there's no case to answer.

Personally I'd rather these events didn't happen at all but that requires policing.
Last edited by kwackers on 10 Mar 2018, 9:21am, edited 1 time in total.

Eton Rifle
Posts: 48
Joined: 6 Mar 2017, 1:16am

Re: "Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

Postby Eton Rifle » 10 Mar 2018, 9:21am

The utility cyclist wrote:This makes for extremely interesting and very important reading.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ety-review

STATS19 reported road casualty data reveals that between 2011 and 2016 there were a total of 2,491 collisions between cyclists and pedestrians that resulted in a pedestrian casualty. Of these, 20 resulted in a pedestrian fatality and 546 resulted in serious injury to the pedestrian.
"While acknowledging that the figures do not indicate whether there was fault on the part of the cyclist, the report concludes that this is “not an insignificant number.”

Is incorrect. The "not an insignificant number" refers to cyclist-pedestrian collision numbers with reference to the cyclist-motor vehicle collisions. This is in 15.4.

The report does apportion fault in cyclist-pedestriin collisions on page 26, footnote 30:

"For completeness, not all of these fatalities were attributed to cyclist error:“15/20 fatalities were assigned at least one contributory factor, with 6/20 assigning a factor to the pedestrian only, 5/20 assigning a factor to both the pedestrian and the cyclist, and 4/20 assigning a factor to the cyclist only.”


In other words, culpability for a pedestrian fatality in a cyclist-pedestrian collision lies exclusively with the cyclist in fewer than a quarter of instances. I wonder why that was buried in a footnote?

I also wonder what the corresponding figures are for motorised vehicle-cyclist collision fatalities and motorised vehicle-pedestrian collisions? Surely comparison with those statistics would enable the reader to judge whether cyclist-pedestrian collisions is 'not an insignificant number' but, mysteriously, the former two categories are not provided.

Eton Rifle
Posts: 48
Joined: 6 Mar 2017, 1:16am

Re: "Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

Postby Eton Rifle » 10 Mar 2018, 9:27am

kwackers wrote:
pete75 wrote:Certainly seems the case on this forum with many complaints about "light" sentences and calls for stiffer penalties.

How about 'fair' sentencing? Or consistent sentencing?

It's pretty simple really, if you think a dangerous cyclist that kills someone should be given a lenient sentence then there's no argument that the same shouldn't apply to a motorist.
It's a perfectly valid argument that having to live with having killed someone is punishment enough so these folk deserve pity and help rather than fines and prison sentences - they are after all 'normal' people that simply made a bad decision.

In a lot of respects cyclists get off pretty lightly anyway since it's almost impossible to stop someone cycling no matter how dangerous they are. And from what I remember pedestrian / cyclist collisions per mile are well above the average for pedestrian / motor vehicle so it's not like there's no case to answer.

Personally I'd rather these events didn't happen at all but that requires policing.


Well, of course they and for two very good reasons that have nothing to do with the relative carelessness of cyclists and drivers.

Firstly, cars travel considerably faster than bicycles. Secondly, there are vast tracts of the road network, like motorways and dual carriageways, where there are either no or very few cyclists or pedestrians for motorists to drive their vehicles into. This hugely skews the death rate per mile travelled downwards for motor vehicles.

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: "Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

Postby reohn2 » 10 Mar 2018, 10:11am

pete75 wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
661-Pete wrote:.........As for a revenge-based system of justice - that has no place here. Some other, less enlightened, parts of the world, maybe - but not here.

Whilst I agree with you entirely,ask a crosssection of society and I think you'll find the hang 'em and flog 'em element has a worrisome following amongst the UK public.


Certainly seems the case on this forum with many complaints about "light" sentences and calls for stiffer penalties.

There's a huge gulf of difference between calling for penalties that fit the crime and stringing offenders up any available lampost as retribution for their crimes.
-----------------------------------------------------------

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: "Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

Postby reohn2 » 10 Mar 2018, 10:14am

kwackers wrote:
pete75 wrote:Certainly seems the case on this forum with many complaints about "light" sentences and calls for stiffer penalties.

How about 'fair' sentencing? Or consistent sentencing?

It's pretty simple really, if you think a dangerous cyclist that kills someone should be given a lenient sentence then there's no argument that the same shouldn't apply to a motorist.
It's a perfectly valid argument that having to live with having killed someone is punishment enough so these folk deserve pity and help rather than fines and prison sentences - they are after all 'normal' people that simply made a bad decision.

In a lot of respects cyclists get off pretty lightly anyway since it's almost impossible to stop someone cycling no matter how dangerous they are. And from what I remember pedestrian / cyclist collisions per mile are well above the average for pedestrian / motor vehicle so it's not like there's no case to answer.

Personally I'd rather these events didn't happen at all but that requires policing.

I can't argue with any of that,especially the bit about policing.
-----------------------------------------------------------

pete75
Posts: 13696
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: "Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

Postby pete75 » 10 Mar 2018, 10:36am

reohn2 wrote:
pete75 wrote:
reohn2 wrote:Whilst I agree with you entirely,ask a crosssection of society and I think you'll find the hang 'em and flog 'em element has a worrisome following amongst the UK public.


Certainly seems the case on this forum with many complaints about "light" sentences and calls for stiffer penalties.

There's a huge gulf of difference between calling for penalties that fit the crime and stringing offenders up any available lampost as retribution for their crimes.

Ah but those calling for that no doubt think it does fit the crime.