Death by Dangerous Cycling

ratherbeintobago
Posts: 180
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby ratherbeintobago » 12 Aug 2018, 7:43am

A consultation is being launched on a new offence of ‘Death by Dangerous Cycling’.

This seems to be an example of bad legislation that does nothing to address general road safety.

I assume there will be an official CUK response?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45154708

User avatar
TrevA
Posts: 1793
Joined: 1 Jun 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby TrevA » 12 Aug 2018, 9:02am

This is attempting to put out a fire in a waste paper bin, whilst the skyscraper behind you is ablaze.

1700 road deaths a year, 450 pedestrians killed each year, of which 2 or 3 involve bicycles.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 7881
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby Cunobelin » 12 Aug 2018, 9:07am

Personally I can see the point of the consultation.

If I was in this guy's position and was originally told (as I believe is the case) that there was no law covering the death and the cyclist was being prosecuted under a law that predates the motor vehicle, then I think would want things bought up to date as well.

Personally I do not see this as an issue, and in some cases the penalties are less than some of the arcane laws used at present

The actual document is HERE and might be worth a read before doing what the press is doing and over dramatising certain points
Last edited by Cunobelin on 12 Aug 2018, 9:50am, edited 1 time in total.

rmurphy195
Posts: 1171
Joined: 20 May 2011, 11:23am
Location: South Birmingham

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby rmurphy195 » 12 Aug 2018, 9:14am

Cunobelin wrote:Personally I can see the point of the consultation.

If I was in this guy's position and was originally told (as I believe is the case) that there was no law covering the death and the cyclist was being prosecuted under a law that predates the motor vehicle, then I think would want things bought up to date as well.

Personally I do not see this as an issue, and in some cases the penalties are less than some of the arcane laws used at present

The actual document is [/url=https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/new-cycling-offences-causing-death-or-serious-injury-when-cycling/cycling-and-walking-investment-strategy-safety-review-proposals-for-new-cycling-offences]HERE[/url] and might be worth a read before doing what the press is doing and over dramatising certain points


+1 - "as a pedestrian" as you might say!

Changing the law won't make any more difference to the idiot cyclists than the death by "dangerous driving" offence makes to the idiots with cars and motorbikes, but there you are.
Scott Purgatory MTB, Brompton, Condor Heritage, creaky joints and grey hair
""You know you're getting old when it's easier to ride a bike than to get on and off it" - quote from observant jogger !

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 42471
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby Mick F » 12 Aug 2018, 9:18am

It should be taken out of the transport offences, for cars as well as bikes, or any transport thing.
If you cause a death by any means, it's manslaughter or murder.
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3147
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby pjclinch » 12 Aug 2018, 9:27am

ratherbeintobago wrote:A consultation is being launched on a new offence of ‘Death by Dangerous Cycling’.

This seems to be an example of bad legislation that does nothing to address general road safety.

I assume there will be an official CUK response?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45154708


Cycling UK's response is linked here

And it pretty much nails the issue. While there's nothing wrong with bringing bampots on bikes to justice the job that needs done is reviewing road justice as a whole, and bampots on bikes are a tiny proportion of the bigger problem.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

atlas_shrugged
Posts: 131
Joined: 8 Nov 2016, 7:50pm

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby atlas_shrugged » 12 Aug 2018, 9:59am

If we are going to get vindictive about things (and I believe this proposal is a purely vindictive law given the low death rate) then why not:

Death by dangerous Planning:
This would be where a planner wilfully refuses to make changes after warnings given over a dangerous junction/road/path/state of repair. This could even be made an aggravated offence in the case of vulnerable road users.

Accident responsibility shifted onto employers (as it is in Belgium):
Most UK employers care not a jot if employees have a dangerous journey into work. In Belgium the employers insurance is responsible in the case of accidents when travelling to work. Since employers (and schools) are responsible for the rush hour why are they not made responsible for accidents?

Dangerous walking:
A pedestrian looking at a mobile phone who steps out into the road without looking is clearly responsible - or do females get some kind of exemption from this on the basis of their gender?

tentman
Posts: 12
Joined: 29 Nov 2007, 5:41pm

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby tentman » 12 Aug 2018, 10:10am

At the risk of over-reacting, if CyclingUK allow this to become law, they become a dog with no teeth.

thirdcrank
Posts: 26688
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby thirdcrank » 12 Aug 2018, 10:22am

People being killed by dangerous cyclists may be rare, but it does occasionally happen. Now, it's possible to take the view that a cyclist as such is doli incapax - incapable of committing a crime - but otherwise, it's a matter of the appropriate charge. At the moment, as we saw with the Alliston case, the alternatives are manslaughter or causing injury by furious driving. One arguably OTT and the other archaic. Causing death by dangerous cycling seems to be an obvious replacement. Had it always been in the Road Traffic Act we'd never have noticed but legislating to include it seems unnecessary; I can't see an argument to oppose it which doesn't appear to be special pleading.

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 6549
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: South Potholeshire also known as the Chilterns

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby al_yrpal » 12 Aug 2018, 10:24am

More to the point, the proposal for a new close passing law opposed by the CUK Council would have saved many more lives and prevented many many serious injuries to cyclists. Now CUK are trying to obsfuscate a very sensible and just government proposal by calling for a general review of road traffic offences which has no chance of serious consideration. This stance is likely to create even more antipathy towards cyclists. No wonder so many of us left!

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. CTC gone but not forgotten!

velotrev
Posts: 8
Joined: 30 Apr 2009, 3:16pm

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby velotrev » 12 Aug 2018, 10:45am

If such a law is put in place does that then also mean that "all" cyclists that cycle on the public highway will need insurance?

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3147
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby pjclinch » 12 Aug 2018, 11:05am

velotrev wrote:If such a law is put in place does that then also mean that "all" cyclists that cycle on the public highway will need insurance?


No.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 7881
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby Cunobelin » 12 Aug 2018, 11:12am

pjclinch wrote:
velotrev wrote:If such a law is put in place does that then also mean that "all" cyclists that cycle on the public highway will need insurance?


No.


I linked the document earlier, Insurance is not part of the consultation

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3147
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby pjclinch » 12 Aug 2018, 11:13am

al_yrpal wrote:More to the point, the proposal for a new close passing law opposed by the CUK Council would have saved many more lives and prevented many many serious injuries to cyclists. Now CUK are trying to obsfuscate a very sensible and just government proposal by calling for a general review of road traffic offences which has no chance of serious consideration. This stance is likely to create even more antipathy towards cyclists. No wonder so many of us left!


But the general review was promised by the government themselves in 2014. CUK are asking them to do what they said they'd do, as opposed to some populist makeover of something of little real impact.

And CUK are campaigning for a clear description of overtaking rules in a Highway Code revision so it's not like they're ignoring close passes.

Sounds a bit like you're looking for sticks to beat them with.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

slowster
Posts: 210
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby slowster » 12 Aug 2018, 11:26am

velotrev wrote:If such a law is put in place does that then also mean that "all" cyclists that cycle on the public highway will need insurance?

As others have said, it's not part of the consultation. Legislation is usually reactive, and as far as I am aware there has not been an issue to date with cyclists causing major life changing injury or death and the victim or their family/dependents being unable to recover financial damages from the cyclist because they were uninsured.

That probably reflects three things:

1. The relatively very small number of incidents of cyclists causing such injuries or deaths.
2. The likelihood that the cyclist will have public liability insurance cover under their (or their family's) household contents insurance policy which will cover the incident.
3. In those cases where the cyclist does not have such cover, if the injured person or their family has household contents insurance, the policy is likely to include cover for 'unrecovered damages' for precisely such a scenario, i.e. if an award is made by a court for damages but the defendant is unable to pay the amount, the household contents insurer will pay the same amount to the policyholder.

It's quite possible that someone could be severely injured/killed by a uninsured cyclist and themselves have no household contents insurance cover, but I suspect the numbers involved would be so small that government would consider the benefit of compulsory third party insurance for cyclists to be outweighed by the potential complexity and bureaucracy entailed in introducing it together with a system of enforcing/checking it and penalties in the criminal justice system for non-compliance.