"Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

[661-Pete]

No realistic proposals from this poster, not vis-a-vis 'dangerous cycling' at any rate, I'm afraid.

Thinking about the old offence of 'wanton and furious driving' - which was the fundament of the Alliston case - well, cyclists do go fast, which could be described as 'wanton and furious', on occasions. I recall once walking the bike up the infamous "Wall" in Ashdown Forest (Kidds Hill - never managed it!) and encountering a group of cyclists going pell-mell down the hill. They must have been doing well over 50mph - touching 60 I reckon. If a pedestrian had happened to step out in front of one of them (and there are plenty of walkers in Ashdown Forest, and they do sometimes have to cross roads) - well they'd have stood no chance, I reckon. Nor would the cyclist, probably. There is always this risk.

With the new offence in place, it could well have been brought to bear in such a case. After all, cycling downhill at 60mph is dangerous. But many cyclists, otherwise law-abiding, have done this at times. I may not have, personally - about 30-35mph is tops for me - but I'm not typical. And even at 30mph I could seriously injure a pedestrian.

There is a clearly set down definition in Law (RTA1988), of 'Dangerous Driving' - it is defined as driving which "falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver", and "it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous." But these are rather subjective definitions, based primarily on the judgement of another person. No wonder many prima facie Dangerous Driving prosecutions fail! On the other hand, there may be some unsafe convictions, for the same reason.

No simple answers.

[thirdcrank]

Here's the existing offence of dangerous cycling including definition:-

28 Dangerous cycling.
(1) A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
(a) the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and
(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.
(3) In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/28

Has anybody any examples of this be used/ abused to prosecute cyclists?

I presume that it's proposed to add a new section making it a criminal offence to cause death by cycling dangerously, as defined there. We know that cyclists cause few deaths, as compared with drivers, but not all of us believe that cyclists are never to blame.

The snag, for some, is that dangerous driving has a max of 6 months imprisonment, while for dangerous cycling it's a fine at level four on the standard scale The max for causing death by dangerous driving is fourteen years, with a proposal to increase it to life. As I've already posted, death = death. Somebody killed by a cyclist is just as dead as somebody killed by a driver.

[ANTONISH]

No realistic proposals from this poster, not vis-a-vis 'dangerous cycling' at any rate, I'm afraid.

Thinking about the old offence of 'wanton and furious driving' - which was the fundament of the Alliston case - well, cyclists do go fast, which could be described as 'wanton and furious', on occasions. I recall once walking the bike up the infamous "Wall" in Ashdown Forest (Kidds Hill - never managed it!) and encountering a group of cyclists going pell-mell down the hill. They must have been doing well over 50mph - touching 60 I reckon. If a pedestrian had happened to step out in front of one of them (and there are plenty of walkers in Ashdown Forest, and they do sometimes have to cross roads) - well they'd have stood no chance, I reckon. Nor would the cyclist, probably. There is always this risk.

Not to mention the sheep and other wildlife. I think there is a 40mph limit on much of the Ashdown Forest.
I can remember riding road races "over the pylons" - you would have to be of an age to know that phrase.
I've ridden audaxes there in recent times - like you I'm very cautious descending in conditions like that.
I suspect that any jury would consider descending at such a speed dangerous.

Although as a cyclist is not required to have a speedometer - I don't know how speeding would be defined.

[drossall]

Cyclists are not subject to speed limits, because the legislation says that (I paraphrase) motor vehicles may not exceed the designated speed limits. Whether you have a speedometer is irrelevant - as someone else pointed out, you don't need a breathalyser fitted to your dashboard to be subject to drink-drive legislation. As this current discussion suggests, a cyclist who rode at a reckless speed might still be subject to prosecution for other offences but, unlike for a motorist, there is not the specific measure of having exceeded a particular limit.

For completeness, cyclists can be subject to speed limits in public parks, on seafronts, and in similar places. That's because limits there are set by bylaws, and not by the national road legislation.

[661-Pete]

Some areas have local speed limits imposed by by-law which apply to cyclists, for example London''s Richmond Park which I believe has a 20mph limit throughout. Whether that automatically implies that all cyclists using the park must have a speedometer, I don't know. An experienced cyclist can probably judge their own speed approximately without gadgetry anyway. Or you can just ensure you're never going faster than any passing motor vehicles to which the 20mph limit applies also. (This always assumes that the motorist is obeying the law.... ).

In Ashdown forest, yes, there is a general 40mph limit for motorists, mainly to protect animals. No special rules for cyclists. I suppose the authorities don't expect a huge influx of daredevil cyclists - the area is very hilly (by South East England standards, that is), and to go down a hill you have to first go up it! Kidd's Hill is definitely tougher than the celebrated Ditchling Beacon, in my opinion...

[drossall]

No, you wouldn't need a speedometer to ride in Richmond Park, except in so far as you chose to have one in order to help you to comply with the limit. The general principle of UK law is that it's your responsibility to comply, and so you need to take any measures that you consider necessary (such as actually finding out what the law says, or using any relevant metering device).

If you were in doubt, you could just choose to ride at a speed that was obviously below the limit.

[thirdcrank]

... Whether you have a speedometer is irrelevant - as someone else pointed out, you don't need a breathalyser fitted to your dashboard to be subject to drink-drive legislation. ....

What an excellent analogy. I don't know who the "someone else" was but I wish it had been me.

[gaz]

For completeness, cyclists can be subject to speed limits ... by the national road legislation.

FTFY .
Section 268 of the Transport Act 2000 allows the creation of "Quiet Lanes" and "Home Zones" with the option of speed limits for cycles.

(5)A speed order is an order authorising the local traffic authority by whom it is made to take measures with a view to reducing the speed of motor vehicles or cycles (or both) on a road to below that specified in the order.

I can't provide any example of where it has been used.

Edit:- Correction, Speed Orders neither create nor replace Speed Limits. http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N01137.pdf

[drossall]

Thanks. I didn't know that.

I can't provide any example of where it has been used.

That may be why I didn't know that...

[thirdcrank]

gaz has posted on the subject and linked to the legislation several times. Possibly one of those bits of official good ideas that never get anywhere. It certainly suggests that there are places where people think that the speed of cyclists should be restricted and demonstrates that speed limits for cyclists can be introduced without regulations requiring the fitting of speedometers.

[ANTONISH]

... Whether you have a speedometer is irrelevant - as someone else pointed out, you don't need a breathalyser fitted to your dashboard to be subject to drink-drive legislation. ....

What an excellent analogy. I don't know who the "someone else" was but I wish it had been me.

I'm not sure this analogy holds. A speedometer enables the driver to regulate their speed to keep within the legal limit.
A breathalyser may indicate an unsafe level but the driver has no ability to regulate their blood alcohol level if its excessive - nor the legal right to carry on until a safe place to stop presents itself.
When France introduced the requirement to carry breathaysers, if the motorist had consumed alcohol one of the breathalysers was supposed to be used to ensure the alcohol level was legal before setting off.

[thirdcrank]

IIRC, Once upon a time, the only sort of speedo you could buy for a pedal cycle was a copy of what was fitted to motorbikes, with a flexible shaft driven by the front wheel and a mechanically-driven analogue dial, all very heavy and nothing more than a novelty item for kids dreaming of being old enough to get a motorbike. The only way for a rider to calculate their speed with any accuracy needed a watch - eg a pocket watch mounted on the handlebars in a Terry's clip - and then use mental arithmetic based on cadence and gear ratio.

Not anymore. For a few quid you can buy a digital jobbie more accurate than what's required to be fitted to a car that will work out all sorts besides. What ever the objections to speed limits for cyclists, being unable to comply because of the unavailability of accurate speedo's isn't one.

[reohn2]

Rather than grinding teeth (and wearing out a cassette ) what is to be done? Let's have some realistic proposals to improve things.

I think that's already been offered up thread,vehicular homicide(killing with a vehicle) is the way to go IMHO,the court decides if the death was unlawful then the judge decides the proportionate blame of the parties involved.

[thirdcrank]

By "realistic" I meant within the current legal set up. Especially post-Brexit referendum, any shift from established procedures just isn't going to happen.

[reohn2]

By "realistic" I meant within the current legal set up. Especially post-Brexit referendum, any shift from established procedures just isn't going to happen.

The (protected)system is the problem,it needs a complete overhaul instead of bolting on bits that suit the bent system of justice(sic) now in operation.
Which as you rightly say isnt going to happen.
The words radical and revolution spring readily to mind,which ain't going to happen either