"Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

[The utility cyclist]

The problem I have is that riding a bike isn't inherrantly dangerous either to oneself or others, however a motor vehicle plus human driver/operator is, hencewhy so many 'safety' devices and protective systems plus devices to prevent loss of control are installed. If driving wasn't so dangerous there would be no need for this, nor would there be any need for pedestrian crash proection designed into motors.

The whole way the vast majority look at the act of a human not trained adequately and/or with a mindset not up to standard is wrong.
By mere fact that despite all the efforts of technology humans still kill over a million other humans every year by motor vehicle.
That in itself is proof enough that it's inherrantly a dangerous act.
Yet the powers that be devalue the protection of the vulnerable by insisting on using the term 'careless' when in fact it cannot be that by the simple fact a death or serious injury occured and does occur with great regularity, again despite all the modern technology in place.

And yet we now (yet again) raise the bar of responsibility for people on bikes, yet again the vast majority fail to understand that even when deaths and injuries occur that a large portion of them are out of control or of equal responsibility to the other party but because of the way the hatred (and it is that) , bias and discrimination has crept in and now part of 'normal'thinking we cannot even get the same level of understanding or sympathy compared to those whose actions kill and maim with impunity.

ThE Charlie Alliston casis a prime example, replace Briggs with a person on a bike and replace Alliston with a car and there is no charge, none, it would be local news of a sad death of a stupid cyclist who moved into the path of a motorist.
At worst the motorist would get a fine for a defective brake. No-one would make a deal out of the two (get out the effing way) blasts of the horn , no-one would mention the drivers looks or tattoos in judgement, no-one would suggest the choice of car predicted the drivers mindset or that they were predisposed to driving in a particular manner.

And yet Alliston was charged accused of an act that his actions clearly did not meet the threshold for (manslaughter was utterly ridiculous) his actions were not wanton or furious, someone who did what the vast majoruty would do in the same scenario, slow down and swerve around, slowed down to little more than a slow running pace (as low as 10mph as admitted by prosecution) and gave audible warnings as per HC advice.

And despite his actions to avoid someone whose own actions were dangerous to themselves he was handed a sentence right at the upper end, meanwhile those who didn't show any consideration for the other party are getting off scot free or a lenient sentence.

This 'act' because it is not a law, will only further serve to persecute people on bikes and be used to punish more severely compared to others.

[Stevek76]

We'll probably get a helmets story next. The ideal story would be Corbyn not wearing a helmet, wearing lycra

Uh that's getting a little conspiracy theory.

At any rate, might be a hard sell given plenty of tory MPs, including boris and jesse norman, have both been photographed in normal clothes and no helmet on a bike.

The Alliston case was nowhere as clear cut as reports in the press claimed

On what basis exactly? Unfit bike, no/minimal effort to stop, yelled/swore both before and after collision, mouthed off on social media afterwards, completely failed to show any sign of remorse/regret whatsoever. 2 years for that seems pretty much par for the course with what drivers get for comparable cases. The ones that get less generally have gone for the apologetic smidsy route.

I've suggested that the changes here would probably be achieved by adding extra sections to the RTA 1988 and I think it would be presented as a tidying up exercise.

It's hard to get away from the point that if somebody is killed, they are dead whoever did it and by whatever means.

Since cyclists don't kill many people when cycling, only a tiny minority have anything to be concerned about.

I'm not keen on the existence of 'death by dangerous...' at all really. It's a sad reflection of juries' unwillingness to convict manslaughter as manslaughter when it happens to occur while people are getting from a to b. Still, it would surely be easier to just have a 'death by dangerous travelling' or something. What if someone recklessly runs a horse into someone next?

And we need (brace for howls of anguish) Jaywalking Legislation .

ugh no. No country with a sensible attitude to transport has jaywalking laws.

[Vorpal]

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?

because it <gasp> might apply to motorists too

[thirdcrank]

I'd suggest that if anybody wants to rewrite Alliston's case, that thread thread is the most appropriate place.

viewtopic.php?p=1168645#p1168645

[The utility cyclist]

I'd suggest that if anybody wants to rewrite Alliston's case, that thread thread is the most appropriate place.

viewtopic.php?p=1168645#p1168645

No, we'll discuss it here thanks because it's VERY relevant to the topic and what we decree as dangerous, how that is interpreted by others for different modes of getting about and where responsibikity lies for all parties.

[Bonefishblues]

Vorpal?

[Cyril Haearn]

I'd suggest that if anybody wants to rewrite Alliston's case, that thread thread is the most appropriate place.

viewtopic.php?p=1168645#p1168645

No, we'll discuss it here thanks because it's VERY relevant to the topic and what we decree as dangerous, how that is interpreted by others for different modes of getting about and where responsibikity lies for all parties.

Maybe the threads could be merged
I would like a function to collect the best/most interesting comments* and I do wish people would try to be concise
* Got that already, sort of: a positive thread

[reohn2]

The problem I have is that riding a bike isn't inherrantly dangerous either to oneself or others, however a motor vehicle plus human driver/operator is, hencewhy so many 'safety' devices and protective systems plus devices to prevent loss of control are installed. If driving wasn't so dangerous there would be no need for this, nor would there be any need for pedestrian crash proection designed into motors.

The whole way the vast majority look at the act of a human not trained adequately and/or with a mindset not up to standard is wrong.
By mere fact that despite all the efforts of technology humans still kill over a million other humans every year by motor vehicle.
That in itself is proof enough that it's inherrantly a dangerous act.
Yet the powers that be devalue the protection of the vulnerable by insisting on using the term 'careless' when in fact it cannot be that by the simple fact a death or serious injury occured and does occur with great regularity, again despite all the modern technology in place.

And yet we now (yet again) raise the bar of responsibility for people on bikes, yet again the vast majority fail to understand that even when deaths and injuries occur that a large portion of them are out of control or of equal responsibility to the other party but because of the way the hatred (and it is that) , bias and discrimination has crept in and now part of 'normal'thinking we cannot even get the same level of understanding or sympathy compared to those whose actions kill and maim with impunity.

ThE Charlie Alliston casis a prime example, replace Briggs with a person on a bike and replace Alliston with a car and there is no charge, none, it would be local news of a sad death of a stupid cyclist who moved into the path of a motorist.
At worst the motorist would get a fine for a defective brake. No-one would make a deal out of the two (get out the effing way) blasts of the horn , no-one would mention the drivers looks or tattoos in judgement, no-one would suggest the choice of car predicted the drivers mindset or that they were predisposed to driving in a particular manner.

And yet Alliston was charged accused of an act that his actions clearly did not meet the threshold for (manslaughter was utterly ridiculous) his actions were not wanton or furious, someone who did what the vast majoruty would do in the same scenario, slow down and swerve around, slowed down to little more than a slow running pace (as low as 10mph as admitted by prosecution) and gave audible warnings as per HC advice.

And despite his actions to avoid someone whose own actions were dangerous to themselves he was handed a sentence right at the upper end, meanwhile those who didn't show any consideration for the other party are getting off scot free or a lenient sentence.

This 'act' because it is not a law, will only further serve to persecute people on bikes and be used to punish more severely compared to others.

I totally agee ith verthing in that post but for the last sentence.
That's because death by dangerous cycling is such a rare event prosicution will be far and very few between.

FWIW I believe such a law should it reach statute is a knee jerk reaction to the Alliston case and Mrs briggs husband's plea for such a law,its effectiveness and use will be once in 10 years IMO.The reason the Alliston got such media coverage is because it happened in London,because it was sor are and because the bike was illegal,not to mention the charachter assination of the accused.
If Allison's bike had had a working front brake I believe he wouldn't have gota custodial sentence.
That's not to say I agree with the sentence and I do think he was made an example of,and as yourightly say if Alliston been on a bike and Mrs Briggs driving with faulty brakes on the front wheels she wouldve attracted a fine,points and perhaps a shor driving ban, and I sight Rhyl as a classic example there are others,the Oxford Street death of a well lit legally riding cyclist is another.

[reohn2]

]

I'm not keen on the existence of 'death by dangerous...' at all really. It's a sad reflection of juries' unwillingness to convict manslaughter as manslaughter when it happens to occur while people are getting from a to b. Still, it would surely be easier to just have a 'death by dangerous travelling' or something. What if someone recklessly runs a horse into someone next?

I'd go for vehicular homicide,once that's established in court the amount of blaim would need to be atributed by experts in the field.
ie; someone unexpectedly stepping in front of a vehicle with the driver being unable to stop is far cry from someone drunk or drugged,speeding driver who wraps a car around a tree and kills the occupants or driving with three bald tyres at the 50mph in icy conditions and mows down a group of cyclists killing four of them.Like the drunk or drugged driver they shouldn't have been on the road with a vehicle in such a state.

EDITED for typos and clarity

[thirdcrank]

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.

[Bonefishblues]

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.

This.

[9494arnold]

Steve K

I take it you have never had the experience of pedestrian either deliberately stepping into your path or more often heads down on the phone ?
How do you stop that? Common sense clearly doesn't apply. Attempted Wounding/ Murder? A bit OTT.
I fully appreciate that the bottom line to most of this is effective Enforcement which is a very expensive commodity.

[kwackers]

Steve K

I take it you have never had the experience of pedestrian either deliberately stepping into your path or more often heads down on the phone ?
How do you stop that? Common sense clearly doesn't apply. Attempted Wounding/ Murder? A bit OTT.
I fully appreciate that the bottom line to most of this is effective Enforcement which is a very expensive commodity.

"Deliberately" stepping out?
They'd only do that if they thought you could stop. So you're suggesting you think it would then be unfair if you didn't and crashed into them?

Heads down on a phone, sure. But then I can show you plenty of footage of cyclists riding and using their mobiles - are they some sort of special case? What happens if they hit a pedestrian and kill them?

Simply having someone step in front of you isn't enough to face a 'death by dangerous cycling' style charge. You have to do something that makes it dangerous.
I fail to see why if you do something that makes your cycling dangerous and kill someone you shouldn't be charged appropriately.

[reohn2]

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.

This.

+1.

[reohn2]

"Deliberately" stepping out?

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.