Death by Dangerous Cycling

[al_yrpal]

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

Pete.

No, the CUK AGM Chairman used proxy votes to reject the Close Passing motion proposed by Steadyrider and me. Since then many lives have been lost and damaged because of their "not invented here" syndrome. You sound like an apologist for an ineffective and disorganised corporate organisation that has clearly lost its way. Met a large group of cyclists on the road yesterday, some of whom used to volunteer at Guildford who were saying the same thing.

Al

[awavey]

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.

most laws predate the motor vehicle though, the age of it is irrelevant surely if its applicable and Id question who ever told him there was no law covering the case, sounds like the usual police havent read the laws style of advice they like to give.

in the Alliston case, the existing law was applied,the judge and jury had no problem interpreting it, and he was convicted on it, harshly some might say, and is spending more time in jail than anyone convicted by the "modern upto date" death by driving laws, but that surely proves the existing law is working perfectly on a conviction rate. certainly I dont believe they campaign is to bring the sentencing guidelines down into match the community service style handouts you get for mowing someone down in a car.

so I dont see the point,if we are simply saying we just want to name the law something different, because it doesnt feel "new" enough, why ? what does it achieve ? maybe the report will be enlightening on that point, but I doubt it.

the only thing a death by dangerous cycling achieves is trying to make cycling equivalent to a motor vehicle, which is ludicrous in terms of the potential harm a motor vehicle has. more than 99% of all deaths on the road are caused by motor vehicles, duvets kill more people every year than cyclists do.

its ridiculous as someone said earlier its treating a paper basket fire, whilst completely ignoring the towering inferno in the room. Theres an equivalent accumulated death toll of a Greenfall disaster every two weeks on the roads in the UK, and nobody in the media or in government cares.

[fionat]

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

Causing death by dangerous behaviour? Cycling should no more be singled out than any other reckless behaviour.

- or do females get some kind of exemption from this on the basis of their gender?

Unnecessary.

[Mick F]

Causing death by dangerous behaviour? Cycling should no more be singled out than any other reckless behaviour.

Exactly.

Like I said before.

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.

[thirdcrank]

.... and is spending more time in jail than anyone convicted by the "modern upto date" death by driving laws, ...

That is factually incorrect. Some drivers convicted of this offence receive custodial sentences in the 8,9,10+ year range. If I'm wrong, cyclists would be better off under charged such a law than manslaughter.

I don't want to start yet another Alliston debate but our legal system places a lot of emphasis on the guilty mind. If a driver were go on the road in a racing car without brakes, depending only on engine braking to slow down, blew their horn to get a pedestrian out of the way and crashed into them and killed them, then the sentence on conviction would be at the top end of the range. The potential of the driver of a motor vehicle for killing somebody is immeasurably greater than a cyclist, but when it happens, the deceased is just as dead no matter what killed them.

IMO if anybody is serious about improved enforcement of traffic law, then "Not me, gov!" is an untenable platform for a campaign.

[rmurphy195]

At present, I feel that barmpot cyclists are able to stick two fingers up irrespective of the harm they cause.

The consultation document points out that at present (if I've read it right), a person convicted of cycling offences can have thier driving licence affected! This I am not happy with - barmpot cyclists that don't have driving licences won't give two hoots on the one hand, but if I ride on the pavement because a road is too dangerous, or simply get done for pushing my bike through a "no cycling" area then I might have my driving licence nailed. Not a happy situation and one that I don't personally agree with.

Motorised (cars, lorries, motorbikes etc.) and non-motorised offences should not crossover. If I gathered enough penalty points in my car to receive a ban, I wouldn't expect to be banned from cycling as well, and neither would I expect it to work the other way around.

Some thought also needs to be given to riders of pedelecs - especially "souped up" or ones with switchable power options. Maybe these should all be treated as mopeds (registration, licensing, where they can be ridden etc.)

[thirdcrank]

IMO the overriding problem is that enforcement of traffic law has collapsed. I was reading something within the last couple of days where either the AA or the RAC was complaining that a lack of visible traffic policing was encouraging a feeling among drivers that they could get away with drink/driving. Motoring organisations calling for more enforcement: whatever next?

If we want to add our voices to the call for more enforcement, special pleading isn't a good tactic.

[ratherbeintobago]

At present, I feel that barmpot cyclists are able to stick two fingers up irrespective of the harm they cause.

To go off on a total tangent, is it worth referring to people as ‘bike users’ rather than ‘cyclists’ to reduce the opportunity for assorted commentators to go off down a MAMIL-related rabbit hole?

[Mick F]

IMO the overriding problem is that enforcement of traffic law has collapsed. I was reading something within the last couple of days where either the AA or the RAC was complaining that a lack of visible traffic policing was encouraging a feeling among drivers that they could get away with drink/driving.

There was something I half-heard on the news the other day, could have been yesterday, that drink driving has increased.

I'm on here on record that we never see a policeman, let alone a police car. However, I was cycling on the Old A30 towards Exeter last week and two police cars shot past blue lights and sirens going like the clappers. They must have used all the resources for a whole year for the Devon and Cornwall Police, plus both of their police cars.

Both of their cars in one go.

[Vitara]

There is a undoubtedly a proportion of society who don't like cyclists, mainly because we have the audacity to delay there oh so important car journeys, & it's easy to view this as an ongoing part of their agenda.

Having read the document it does seem fairly balanced. As has already been said if we think road safety is important we shouldn't be objecting to a law that discourages careless or dangerous cycling and allows prosecution if someone is injured or killed as a result of either of these.

The part that interests/puzzles me is 2.40 which claims that Courts already have the discretion to impose a driving disqualification for cycling offences.

a) Is this really correct?
b) If so how can it work, not all cyclists will have driving licenses & those that do could be disqualified but still ride a bike as no license is required?

I can't see how or why a cycling offence should effect a driving license (if held)

I suspect a significant proportion of drivers who lose their license for drink driving resort to using a bicycle for the duration of their ban.

[thirdcrank]

The part that interests/puzzles me is 2.40 which claims that Courts already have the discretion to impose a driving disqualification for cycling offences.

a) Is this really correct?

Why would they make it up? The main point here is that a court can disqualify for any offence, ie not only cycling offences. The rationale is that it's an effective punishment stopping short of porridge. This is provided for under s 146 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/6/section/146

b) If so how can it work, not all cyclists will have driving licenses & those that do could be disqualified but still ride a bike as no license is required?

If you have no licence, it doesn't affect you unless you decide to apply for one.

I can't see how or why a cycling offence should effect a driving license (if held)

I suspect a significant proportion of drivers who lose their license for drink driving resort to using a bicycle for the duration of their ban.

AFAIK, They aren't proposing disqualifying people from cycling.
===================================================================
PS Forgot to mention that the relevant spin here refers to a review of the HC on close passing. We did have a long thread recently which included a discussion of the problems involved with proving overtaking distances to the criminal standard ie the evidence needed for a successful prosecution. Here's my suggestion from that thread

It's already been pointed out that the advice in Rule 163 to "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" is meaningless. The picture illustrating that advice doesn't help much. Rule 212 includes "When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room" and that might usefully be qualified with "treat five feet as an absolute minimum." (I've suggested five feet because it's as near as dammit 1.5 metres but it sounds more and it's imperial measure.)

viewtopic.php?p=1248826#p1248826

[pjclinch]

Having read the document it does seem fairly balanced. As has already been said if we think road safety is important we shouldn't be objecting to a law that discourages careless or dangerous cycling and allows prosecution if someone is injured or killed as a result of either of these.

On the one hand, no we shouldn't object to that, but on the other, do you spend a large amount of time and effort on something you'll rarely roll out because few people are affected, or do you you spend the same time and effort rolling out someone that will be important in at least an order of magnitude more cases?

The issue isn't that cyclists should be immune from prosecution for killing or maiming people, it's the issue that there are very few that would be prosecuted under such a law while one can pretty much get away with murder in a motor vehicle.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

No, the CUK AGM Chairman used proxy votes to reject the Close Passing motion proposed by Steadyrider and me. Since then many lives have been lost and damaged because of their "not invented here" syndrome. You sound like an apologist for an ineffective and disorganised corporate organisation that has clearly lost its way. Met a large group of cyclists on the road yesterday, some of whom used to volunteer at Guildford who were saying the same thing.

My understanding is that back in the Good Old Days the campaigns work was largely centred around the sterling work done by Roger Geffen and colleagues, and these days it seems that the campaigns work is largely centred around the sterling work done by Roger Geffen and colleagues. And I don't think any apology is necessary for that work.

If you're going to strongly imply CUK policy has got people dead and damaged I think you need a bit more back up than a loose assertion.

Pete.

[reohn2]

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.

Spot on!
Though it's no more than to be expected in a motorcentic society that is operating turned upon it's head

[thirdcrank]

... On the one hand, no we shouldn't object to that, but on the other, do you spend a large amount of time and effort on something you'll rarely roll out because few people are affected, or do you you spend the same time and effort rolling out someone that will be important in at least an order of magnitude more cases?

The issue isn't that cyclists should be immune from prosecution for killing or maiming people, it's the issue that there are very few that would be prosecuted under such a law while one can pretty much get away with murder in a motor vehicle.
...

Realpolitik raises it's ugly head. It seems to me that as cyclists and vulnerable road users we'd benefit from robust enforcement of traffic legislation. So, that should be the goal. Whatever the niceties, the rest is incidental. However, as soon as cyclists appear to be indulging in special pleading, then our voice is diminished. Watch any politician, and the strategy is to get the discussion on to your own ground; you don't do that by fighting on other ground, especially unwinnable battles. "I think the important question is ...."

The issue isn't that cyclists should be immune from prosecution for killing or maiming people it may not be to you, but a casual visitor to a cycling forum might believe it's the view of some cyclists.

FWIW, a lot of drivers are beginning to realise that everybody - except the baddies - benefits from robust enforcement and that's the type of public opinion we need to foster.