"Death by Dangerous Cycling" new offence?

[reohn2]

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

If you mean those on here I don't see any.As for the country as a whle then that's a different story,which is IMO a worrying prospect as it can lead to extrmeism across the poltical spectrum

[thirdcrank]

Although vulnerable road users face the biggest danger by definition, I've seen nothing to suggest that any new offence will be restricted to killing pedestrians. It's now forty years ago this summer since I investigated a fatal crash where a careless cyclist was completely responsible - in my evidence-based opinion - for the death of a motorcyclist. Not the slightest possibility of charges because the cyclist died as well, which is perhaps the biggest deterrent against dangerous cycling.

With the big rise in cycling in London, it may not be long before we have some serious cyclist-on-cyclist crashes.

[pete75]

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.

It may also be because of the propensity of some cyclists to ride on the pavement.

[reohn2]

With the big rise in cycling in London, it may not be long before we have some serious cyclist-on-cyclist crashes.

If you watched any of the youtube videos I linked to on page six of this thread I'm surprised there arent many more KSI's involving cyclists in London

[The utility cyclist]

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.

I'll give you a clue 'the report’s author, Laura Thomas of Birketts LLP - a Deputy Traffic Commissioner and former board member for the Freight Transport Association ...
The information was dug out by Road cc member pjm60 whom I lifted it from http://road.cc/content/news/238411-dft- ... ycling-law

It's incredibly insidious that this very, very important bit of information is hidden out of sight, especially with the use of "for completeness" as if it is an afterthought that doesn't really matter and still (for completeness remember ) doesn't make any comparisons to same stats for motor vehicles. This matters a LOT. One could almost say there was an agenda behind the whole thing (there is) and indeed the report itself highlights how yet again there is a bias because it says the numbers are significant when clearly comparative to motors it's not even remotely significant when talking about who is at fault nor indeed how many people are killed/injured because pedestrians/those on foot are at fault.

The other issue as well is that STATS19 figures are completed by a group that already has an inherrent motorcentric bias, even the police themselves fail to understand whose responsibility it is in any given scenario, we see this all too often. Just look at the Michael Mason case as well as many others were the police have blamed the victim or just apportioned blame equally when it's anything but!

[thirdcrank]

Re the call for increasing punishments, I've been looking at the "bad driving" offences as they were before the "what would be expected of a competent and careful driver" definition was introduced.

Under the RTA 1960, the max fine for a first offence of careless driving was £40. I've not much idea of what it is now, but it is level 5 on the Standard Scale, which is a nod to the effects of inflation. However, the max for causing death by reckless or dangerous driving was five years, and the subsequent increases have not been the result of inflation or a conspiracy to protect motorists. It's now 14 years with pressure to increase it to life, apparently to put it on a par with manslaughter. FWIW, manslaughter carries a max of life impt., because it's a Common Law offence ie originating in judge-made precedent, rather than an Act of Parliament. I suspect that in 1960, the going rate for involuntary manslaughter was under 5 years.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eli ... 16/enacted
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/schedule/2

(The first link has the former definitions, based on danger to the public, which were replaced in the RTA 1988, following an appeal judgment.)
==================================================================
Unlike civil proceedings (compo etc) criminal proceedings (punishment) are based on the available evidence against the suspect / defendant. They are not based on apportioning blame.

[The utility cyclist]

Re the call for increasing punishments, I've been looking at the "bad driving" offences as they were before the "what would be expected of a competent and careful driver" definition was introduced.

Under the RTA 1960, the max fine for a first offence of careless driving was £40. I've not much idea of what it is now, but it is level 5 on the Standard Scale, which is a nod to the effects of inflation. However, the max for causing death by reckless or dangerous driving was five years, and the subsequent increases have not been the result of inflation or a conspiracy to protect motorists. It's now 14 years with pressure to increase it to life, apparently to put it on a par with manslaughter. FWIW, manslaughter carries a max of life impt., because it's a Common Law offence ie originating in judge-made precedent, rather than an Act of Parliament. I suspect that in 1960, the going rate for involuntary manslaughter was under 5 years.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eli ... 16/enacted
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/schedule/2

(The first link has the former definitions, based on danger to the public, which were replaced in the RTA 1988, following an appeal judgment.)

But the average length of conviction when there is one is 14 months, no-one has ever, repeat ever had the maximum tariff applied, not even close, raising the maximum tariff is utterly pointless.
As repeated numerous times, kill someone with a motor and you're more likely to get off totally scot-free or just a fine, there are too many, nay the majority of incidents were the evidence is clear to those of us that actually understand whose responsibility it is and feel disgusted at the outcome.

The fact we don't have presumed liability nor even being talked about by the powers that be yet all this action on the back or a small handful of incidents that were actually the cyclists fault tells you all you need to know about how rubbish/slanted this all is!

I don't dispute that the way we looked at incidents in the past was any better but we are supposed to be moving forward not going backward in how we protect the vulnerable and push the responsibility back onto those that are clearly the ones that are and have always being doing the damage to society.

[thirdcrank]

... we are supposed to be moving forward not going backward in how we protect the vulnerable and push the responsibility back onto those that are clearly the ones that are and have always being doing the damage to society.

And so say all of us. My only reason for looking back - apart from being a doddery old git - is that there was a time when road traffic law was visibly enforced, with the purpose of prevention. A condign sentence after somebody has been killed is too late.

I'll reiterate that IMO that some posters are in the situation of simultaneously believing that cyclists cannot be guilty of committing an offence, but it doesn't matter if they do.

Setting aside issues about the message a new offence might send out, what would be there to worry about? If those of us who condone the conduct of a rider without proper brakes relying on shouting at those who get in their road as a form of accident prevention are really saying "there but for fortune go I" that's their problem.

If we really want to move forward, we want better all-round enforcement, not special pleading for cyclists.

Also, it has always bugged me that there's sometimes a feeling in official circles that cycling is for children, so cyclists are childish, or at least irrelevant or at best peripheral. Let's not demean ourselves by seeming to take a similar approach to sidestep our responsibilities as road users. Not a word of this is intended to reduce the onus on the users of motor vehicles.

[pete75]

As repeated numerous times, kill someone with a motor and you're more likely to get off totally scot-free or just a fine, there are too many, nay the majority of incidents were the evidence is clear to those of us that actually understand whose responsibility it is and feel disgusted at the outcome.

The fact we don't have presumed liability nor even being talked about by the powers that be yet all this action on the back or a small handful of incidents that were actually the cyclists fault tells you all you need to know about how rubbish/slanted this all is!

I suspect that those that sit through a case in court hearing all the evidence are the ones who understand best whose responsibility it is. All anyone else knows is what the press choose to report. A lawyer I know well says she's never seen a single one of her criminal trials accurately reported by a journalist.

Unless the legal system changes to guilty until proved innocent we won't have presumed liability. It will be a black day for justice if that change ever happens.

[The utility cyclist]

As repeated numerous times, kill someone with a motor and you're more likely to get off totally scot-free or just a fine, there are too many, nay the majority of incidents were the evidence is clear to those of us that actually understand whose responsibility it is and feel disgusted at the outcome.

The fact we don't have presumed liability nor even being talked about by the powers that be yet all this action on the back or a small handful of incidents that were actually the cyclists fault tells you all you need to know about how rubbish/slanted this all is!

I suspect that those that sit through a case in court hearing all the evidence are the ones who understand best whose responsibility it is. All anyone else knows is what the press choose to report. A lawyer I know well says she's never seen a single one of her criminal trials accurately reported by a journalist.

Unless the legal system changes to guilty until proved innocent we won't have presumed liability. It will be a black day for justice if that change ever happens.

Do they? the powers that be clearly thought not as they introduced the death by careless because jurists were reluctant to convict on the charge that the police/CPS thought was appropriate on a massive scale. This in itself indicates that those in the jury are not fit for purpose, not capable of being objective simply because in these cases they themselves are motorists (for the most part), we've had this discussion time and again, the vast majority of people sitting in a jury are NOT qualified and have an inherent bias toward the motorist because they are one themselves and cannot see the danger and responsibility that the motorist presented because they would not act that differently/there but for the grace of god go I.

[awavey]

... we are supposed to be moving forward not going backward in how we protect the vulnerable and push the responsibility back onto those that are clearly the ones that are and have always being doing the damage to society.

And so say all of us. My only reason for looking back - apart from being a doddery old git - is that there was a time when road traffic law was visibly enforced, with the purpose of prevention. A condign sentence after somebody has been killed is too late.

I'll reiterate that IMO that some posters are in the situation of simultaneously believing that cyclists cannot be guilty of committing an offence, but it doesn't matter if they do.

Setting aside issues about the message a new offence might send out, what would be there to worry about? If those of us who condone the conduct of a rider without proper brakes relying on shouting at those who get in their road as a form of accident prevention are really saying "there but for fortune go I" that's their problem.

that the new law would be misused and cyclists involved in collisions that lead to pedestrian deaths through no fault of their own and unless they carried cameras and videoed every ride how could they prove it wasnt,would suddenly find themselves being charged with a far more serious crime, than had the exact same collision happened and theyd been in a car instead.

you can drive a truck into a minibus with hazards on and kill 8 people, and get away with merely "carelessness" do you think under this new law for cyclists, if a cyclist rode into a group of 8 people standing in the road by their minibus and they all died, it wouldnt be charged as dangerous ?

and thats the point.

theres a road on one the routes I take quite often which is a reasonable downhill descent, you can easily go from near barely moving as you reach the brow of the hill to 25-30mph without much effort at all even for me who is less than aerodynamic, and it really confuses the heck out of cars trying to overtake you.

but its fairly common for pedestrians on the left side of the road walking down hill, to cross without looking behind them first,over to the right side of the road where theres a common very popular with dog walkers, shops/pubs/riverside walks etc, they assume no engine noise means nothing coming and if they see nothing coming up the hill, they just step out.

now if i or any other cyclist were to hit one of those pedestrians at that kind of speed as there wouldnt be enough time to react,slow or even avoid them, theres every chance they would end up with a serious head injury which then results in their death, and then results under this new law Ive no doubt with a charge of death by dangerous cycling, because the average member of the public/tabloids would not believe 25-30mph is actually achievable without riding somehow very dangerously, especially given the setup of the road, you know theres every chance a pedestrian will step out in front of you, so why ride at a speed you cant stop at. Of course in car though most hit 40mph down the same hill (its a 30mph limit btw), in the same situation its unlikely the driver would even be prosecuted with a careless charge.

[thirdcrank]

Re presumed liability, here's Martin Porter with my emphasis, on the subject in vorpal's link:

There are so many variants of strict liability that it’s difficult to be certain when someone is proposing strict liability what exactly it is they’re proposing.

Some want it in criminal cases, where there is a presumption of responsibility on the larger vehicle [a driver is presumed responsible in a collision with a cyclist, and a cyclist presumed responsible in a collision with a pedestrian], which is never going to happen as it just bangs up against the human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

So, what's being proposed here?

On a point of information, causing death by dangerous driving was introduced following public campaigning, by those unhappy that there was no criminal charge between careless driving and causing death by dangerous driving. FWIW, it's pretty well-documented that there were warnings that introducing that offence would lead to plea-bargaining etc. Those campaigners were not so different to those who now feel there's a gap between furiously driving a carriage and manslaughter.

Back to Martin Porter, he doesn't seem to cover the importance of mens rea - the guilty mind - in English criminal law, which places a lot of emphasis on it. That's why I was falling about laughing at his suggestion that jury trial worked well in fraud cases. The fact that it's usually so much easier to kill somebody with a motor vehicle than a pedal cycle tends to make it harder to establish mens rea in a driver. Which is in turn why there are so many so-called absolute offences.

[pete75]

As repeated numerous times, kill someone with a motor and you're more likely to get off totally scot-free or just a fine, there are too many, nay the majority of incidents were the evidence is clear to those of us that actually understand whose responsibility it is and feel disgusted at the outcome.

The fact we don't have presumed liability nor even being talked about by the powers that be yet all this action on the back or a small handful of incidents that were actually the cyclists fault tells you all you need to know about how rubbish/slanted this all is!

I suspect that those that sit through a case in court hearing all the evidence are the ones who understand best whose responsibility it is. All anyone else knows is what the press choose to report. A lawyer I know well says she's never seen a single one of her criminal trials accurately reported by a journalist.

Unless the legal system changes to guilty until proved innocent we won't have presumed liability. It will be a black day for justice if that change ever happens.

Do they? the powers that be clearly thought not as they introduced the death by careless because jurists were reluctant to convict on the charge that the police/CPS thought was appropriate on a massive scale. This in itself indicates that those in the jury are not fit for purpose, not capable of being objective simply because in these cases they themselves are motorists (for the most part), we've had this discussion time and again, the vast majority of people sitting in a jury are NOT qualified and have an inherent bias toward the motorist because they are one themselves and cannot see the danger and responsibility that the motorist presented because they would not act that differently/there but for the grace of god go I.

Just because the police/prosecution charge a defendant with a particular crime it doesn't mean they are guilty else why bother with a trial? I'd have thought the fact that juries bring in not guilty verdicts shows they are fit for purpose. They certainly wouldn't be fit for purpose if they always brought in guilty verdicts or, as I suspect you mean, the verdict you would like.

Have you ever sat on a jury? I have and there were a wide variety of people on it but all had a responsible and objective attitude toward reaching a verdict. Some were "qualified" educationally and professionally and one, a retired farm worker, said he'd left school at 13 with nothing. The latter's wisdom and shrewd understanding of human nature were very valuable in our discussions. You say most people sitting on a jury are NOT qualified - what qualifications do you think they should have?

[The utility cyclist]

theres a road on one the routes I take quite often which is a reasonable downhill descent, you can easily go from near barely moving as you reach the brow of the hill to 25-30mph without much effort at all even for me who is less than aerodynamic, and it really confuses the heck out of cars trying to overtake you.

but its fairly common for pedestrians on the left side of the road walking down hill, to cross without looking behind them first,over to the right side of the road where theres a common very popular with dog walkers, shops/pubs/riverside walks etc, they assume no engine noise means nothing coming and if they see nothing coming up the hill, they just step out.

now if i or any other cyclist were to hit one of those pedestrians at that kind of speed as there wouldnt be enough time to react,slow or even avoid them, theres every chance they would end up with a serious head injury which then results in their death, and then results under this new law Ive no doubt with a charge of death by dangerous cycling, because the average member of the public/tabloids would not believe 25-30mph is actually achievable without riding somehow very dangerously, especially given the setup of the road, you know theres every chance a pedestrian will step out in front of you, so why ride at a speed you cant stop at. Of course in car though most hit 40mph down the same hill (its a 30mph limit btw), in the same situation its unlikely the driver would even be prosecuted with a careless charge.

That should read it confuses those drivers that are hell bent on overtaking no matter what and can't judge speed or refuse to accept that the speed you are currently going at is acceptable for them in their selfish bubble.

And as I've said upthread and you've mentioned here, the application of this law will be done so in a manner that would not and is not used when it is a motorist doing the harm and the rules seemingly go out the window to excuse the motorist their actions and blame the vulnerable road user whether that be a person on foot or on a bike. This happens in spades, even the police, CPS and judges are in on this discrimination/bias which in turn effects the STATS 19 reports too not to mention the direct outcome in proesecutions/charging and outcomes in court plus the general hatred projected onto people on bikes. We can't win even when the facts are presented!

[thirdcrank]

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