"Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

[reohn2]

.........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]

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]

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?

[661-Pete]

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.

[kwackers]

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.

[Paulatic]

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

[thirdcrank]

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.

[The utility cyclist]

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]

.........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]

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.

[Eton Rifle]

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]

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]

.........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]

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]

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.