"Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

[kwackers]

Ive had that happen to me,as I've had people on mobiles step off the kerb oblivious to my presence,which I suspect is because they were relying on their hearing and not their eyes simply because the bike is so quiet.
All that's predictable when the streets are empty with few people on them pedestrian behaviour can be read if the cyclist is observant nough but not I'd sugest in central London or a similar sized city.
I find the attitude toward cyclists by some of the general public atrocious whether they be driving or walking.

I've had them step out but as annoying as it is you simply brake. If you don't and you could have then you need a very good reason why.

Personally I find not riding in the gutter to be the best defence.

[reohn2]

I've had them step out but as annoying as it is you simply brake. If you don't and you could have then you need a very good reason why.

Personally I find not riding in the gutter to be the best defence.

I agree about riding in the gutter and have a natural aversion to it.
It's not always that simple though ,I've had people walking across the road simply turn around quickly and head back in the opposite direction,stretchy dog lead syndrom?,teenage school children can be very unpredictable especially in groups,etc.
However careful you cycle there's always some pedestrian tryinng their best to get hit IME,Ive always managed to thwart their attempts up to now .

[Mike Sales]

I agree about riding in the gutter and have a natural aversion to it.
It's not always that simple though ,I've had people walking across the road simply turn around quickly and head back in the opposite direction,stretchy dog lead syndrom?,teenage school children can be very unpredictable especially in groups,etc.
However careful you cycle there's always some pedestrian tryinng their best to get hit IME,Ive always managed to thwart their attempts up to now .

As I caught up with a couple of boys walking along the pavement, one, who was kicking his skateboard ahead of him, gave it an extra strong push. It veered (unintentionally I'm sure) into the road and straight under my front wheel at 90 degrees to my course. It whipped my front wheel from under me and I fell. As I lay there (in a puddle) the lads stared down at me, aghast I think at what they'd done.
This is really apropos of nothing relevant, but perhaps a genuine accident and certainly funny.
I said, "Don't just stand there, apologise."

[Vorpal]

Cyclist chatted with Martin Porter, QC about the proposed law....

http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/3372/cycl ... -interview

[kwackers]

Cyclist chatted with Martin Porter, QC about the proposed law....

http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/3372/cycl ... -interview

Good article and I think it's absolute right that the law will make bugger all difference.
That doesn't mean that I don't think a unification of existing laws is both simpler and just might focus the minds of some of the idiots I see on bikes.

My opinion is let them get on with it then we can move onto something else, something hopefully beneficial because this is nothing other than a distraction.

[The utility cyclist]

All I'd say is that discussion implies an exchange of views and taking into account what others post. I'll apologise here for my posts often being lengthy, but detailed points were often involved.

I'd agree totally that the whole of our legal system tends not to favour vulnerable road users and I don't think I've been slow to point that out. IMO, we do ourselves no favours by taking the stance that straddling a bike turns somebody into a combination of an arch-angel and Saint Sebastion.

But this only seems to apply to one group that others have this ridiculous thinking to project one as all. In fact we are required to have a higher standard than motorvehicle drivers, we are on the look out not just for motons but for pedestrians too and do behave better on the whole than other groups but I don't see anyone saying we are all saint like, just that we are getting banged from both ends and having rules/laws applied to us more harshly than any other group using the highway, this is simply a fact.
It wouldn't matter how we act as individuals or as a collective, there is a hatred of the out group because of how it is perceived, how it is portrayed by those with an agenda and by those that are too stupid to 'get it'. This goes so far as to lumping all on the back of one or two which in itself completely ignores other groups whose wrong 'uns number massively greater and do massively more harm to society and individuals.
We are screwed whichever way we act, high and mighty or not.

[chris_suffolk]

This may already have been said in the thread, but it's too long to read it all now. Along with the new law why doesn't somebody (CTC?) press for presumed liability to be brought in at the same time?

[The utility cyclist]

This may already have been said in the thread, but it's too long to read it all now. Along with the new law why doesn't somebody (CTC?) press for presumed liability to be brought in at the same time?

Because that would mean it'd be about safety and responsibility of those that are currently maiming and killing with impunity, that's not the done thing doncha know. It's about doing 'something' against the out group that appeases the daily heil reader and Mr Briggs and the motor industry.
You can't be expecting politicians to actually want to put in place something that will actually save lives and protect the vulnerable ...tsk .

[reohn2]

Following on from Kwackers' drift,London seems to be a loonie bin for cyclists:-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JtV51NUtg4Y
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=426s&v=sxsOBnkKTKk

And to even up the balance:-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WllnlHvWT88

Posted on the Toob by a cyclist

EDIT TC changed for Kwackers,apologies to TC.

[thirdcrank]

... Good article and I think it's absolute right that the law will make bugger all difference.
That doesn't mean that I don't think a unification of existing laws is both simpler and just might focus the minds of some of the idiots I see on bikes.

My opinion is let them get on with it then we can move onto something else, something hopefully beneficial because this is nothing other than a distraction. (My emphasis)

The bit in bold is my take on this.

Much of what Martin Porter says is common ground on this forum. However, I think it's factually wrong to suggest that the Alliston case was only about a breach of the Con and Use regs but in any event, I've aready linked above to the relevant legislation which says that the condition of a motor vehicle ie breaches of the con and use regs can, in certain circumstances amount to dangerous driving of a motor vehicle. We can only guess at the final form of a possible "causing death by dangerous cycling" offence, but it seems unlikely to be worded in such a way as to legalise riding the streets on an unmodified track bike.

He suggests trial by jury works well in fraud cases.

A wider point about changes to the legal system as a whole, perhaps to some model used elsewhere, is that it's not going to happen. Brexit was most strongly fought over retaining our legal system - a lot of that on money from people who don't want a system that punishes fraudsters.

[Cunobelin]

Might I point out an error in the posts that suggest that animals such as sheep on the road are illegal. Maybe a post from the city? In many parts of the country animals graze on open land. There are sheep wandering up the road near me as I type. Perfectly legal. Wales and Scotland are littered with the things as are places like Dartmoor or the New Forest.
Hitting these is not the fault of the owner generally. Its the fault of the driver who didn't drive according to the conditions. Sheep and cattle on the road don't leap out from the bushes like squirrels and deer. You can see them coming.
Back to the point. To me if your actions hurt then you should pay the price. Stupidity is deliberate. Getting it wrong is stupid. Misjudging things is stupid. Serves you right.

However there are groups actively campaigning for this stock to wear Hi-Viz and lights!

[661-Pete]

However careful you cycle there's always some pedestrian tryinng their best to get hit IME,Ive always managed to thwart their attempts up to now .

Me too - in my recollection I've never, repeat never, collided with a pedestrian - and I hope to maintain that record! The nearest I came - perhaps - was when I was riding (maybe a bit fast) along a cycle path and two lads on MTBs, riding abreast, came towards me, also going fast. In an effort to avoid me, they collided with each other and both went down. They weren't hurt, luckily. Funny, in restrospect.

[thirdcrank]

Except in the unlikely event of the introduction of some version of presumed liability, I cannot see the circumstances where colliding with a pedestrian stepping off the pavement immediately in front of a rider in the absence of other offending would amount to a dangerous riding offence. Dangerous cycling is already an offence and we don't have many reports of prosecutions.

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.

[661-Pete]

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?

The Alliston case has, with all its publicity, possibly already had the effect of deterring other fixie riders from venturing onto the streets without brakes. If so, a small benefit from this tragic event.

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.

[thirdcrank]

I don't suppose there's any real prospect of the significant strengthening of the enforcement of road traffic law which many would like to see and some campaign for. Appearing to add the caveat "... but not me, Guv." seems to me to be likely to reduce the chances even further.