Death by Dangerous Cycling

[thirdcrank]

... For the normal person, the Allison / Briggs case where an arcane law was used because there is no current legislation is wrong, and for this reason that anomaly being filled with a reasonable update bringing cyclists into the 21st Century is a sensible and just response.

MY real concern is that the impression given is that cyclists do not want to have a modern law that covers them, and brings parity with other road users - they are very happy that (as a group) they cannot be prosecuted for causing death through reckless or careless actions.

This could very easily become a situation where the real outcome is to align many members of the public against cyclists and their demands to be outside the legal system by refusing to be treated like other road users

That pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say.

[reohn2]

For the normal person, the Allison / Briggs case where an arcane law was used because there is no current legislation is wrong, and for this reason that anomaly being filled with a reasonable update bringing cyclists into the 21st Century is a sensible and just response.

MY real concern is that the impression given is that cyclists do not want to have a modern law that covers them, and brings parity with other road users - they are very happy that (as a group) they cannot be prosecuted for causing death through reckless or careless actions.

This could very easily become a situation where the real outcome is to align many members of the public against cyclists and their demands to be outside the legal system by refusing to be treated like other road users

That's how I see it too.

[meic]

Saying that cyclists need parity with other road users whilst actually meaning motorised traffic buys into the concept of them owning the road.
Pedestrians are also road users and not governed by any such laws.

These laws were only created in the first place to protect others from the dangers bought by fast heavy motorised traffic. Extending them to cover non-motorised is extending beyond the scope and spirit of the original laws.

The threat posed by cyclists is more at the nuisance level than at the serious injury level of things and better dealt with by laws from that perspective.
These laws will have zero effect on the nuisance caused by cyclists and nothing will have improved for the anti-cyclists supporting them, so they will soon be back for more.

[Bonefishblues]

For the normal person, the Allison / Briggs case where an arcane law was used because there is no current legislation is wrong, and for this reason that anomaly being filled with a reasonable update bringing cyclists into the 21st Century is a sensible and just response.

MY real concern is that the impression given is that cyclists do not want to have a modern law that covers them, and brings parity with other road users - they are very happy that (as a group) they cannot be prosecuted for causing death through reckless or careless actions.

This could very easily become a situation where the real outcome is to align many members of the public against cyclists and their demands to be outside the legal system by refusing to be treated like other road users

That's how I see it too.

Add me to the list

[brooksby]

I think it would be even harder to prove in the case of a cyclist. What sort of cycling "would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist"? How would Counsel explain this to a jury?

But the jury knows exactly how a competent and careful cyclist rides. The competent and careful cyclist never ever rides on footpaths, or on shared-use paths (you know - just in case); but they never ride on the road either (because they might hold up law abiding motorists). They wear a helmet, and hi viz, and use lights even throughout daylight. They ride no more than 30 cm from the kerb. They give way to every other road user, and to pedestrians, and to passing pigeons (bowing to the ground is optional). Anything other than that, well, then they deserve what's coming to them, don't they...

[Cunobelin]

I think it would be even harder to prove in the case of a cyclist. What sort of cycling "would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist"? How would Counsel explain this to a jury?

But the jury knows exactly how a competent and careful cyclist rides. The competent and careful cyclist never ever rides on footpaths, or on shared-use paths (you know - just in case); but they never ride on the road either (because they might hold up law abiding motorists). They wear a helmet, and hi viz, and use lights even throughout daylight. They ride no more than 30 cm from the kerb. They give way to every other road user, and to pedestrians, and to passing pigeons (bowing to the ground is optional). Anything other than that, well, then they deserve what's coming to them, don't they...

Biased speculation, with no proof

[Bonefishblues]

I think it would be even harder to prove in the case of a cyclist. What sort of cycling "would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist"? How would Counsel explain this to a jury?

But the jury knows exactly how a competent and careful cyclist rides. The competent and careful cyclist never ever rides on footpaths, or on shared-use paths (you know - just in case); but they never ride on the road either (because they might hold up law abiding motorists). They wear a helmet, and hi viz, and use lights even throughout daylight. They ride no more than 30 cm from the kerb. They give way to every other road user, and to pedestrians, and to passing pigeons (bowing to the ground is optional). Anything other than that, well, then they deserve what's coming to them, don't they...

Biased speculation, with no proof

I have only been on one Jury, but I think we took our role a deal more seriously than that rather silly post might seem to suggest.

[Cunobelin]

But the jury knows exactly how a competent and careful cyclist rides. The competent and careful cyclist never ever rides on footpaths, or on shared-use paths (you know - just in case); but they never ride on the road either (because they might hold up law abiding motorists). They wear a helmet, and hi viz, and use lights even throughout daylight. They ride no more than 30 cm from the kerb. They give way to every other road user, and to pedestrians, and to passing pigeons (bowing to the ground is optional). Anything other than that, well, then they deserve what's coming to them, don't they...

Biased speculation, with no proof

I have only been on one Jury, but I think we took our role a deal more seriously than that rather silly post might seem to suggest.

My experience was that it was very carefully explained, and if you look at the Allison case there was a lot of time spent giving evidence as to why teh front brake was important

[Bonefishblues]

Yes, ours was a very technical case involving the definition of a firearm and we received detailed submissions on the law's interpretation.

[thirdcrank]

Saying that cyclists need parity with other road users whilst actually meaning motorised traffic buys into the concept of them owning the road.
Pedestrians are also road users and not governed by any such laws.

These laws were only created in the first place to protect others from the dangers bought by fast heavy motorised traffic. Extending them to cover non-motorised is extending beyond the scope and spirit of the original laws.

The threat posed by cyclists is more at the nuisance level than at the serious injury level of things and better dealt with by laws from that perspective.
These laws will have zero effect on the nuisance caused by cyclists and nothing will have improved for the anti-cyclists supporting them, so they will soon be back for more.

Are you really saying that if a cyclist kills somebody by riding dangerously they should be dealt with through whatever the current terms is for an ASBO? The rationale apparently being that it doesn't happen often so it's neither here nor there when it does.

[meic]

No I am not saying that a death caused by a dangerous cyclist should be dealt with by an ASBO.

I am saying that the majority of complaints about cyclists from vulnerable users (and disgruntled motorists) are about us being a nuisance to them, cycling on the pavements or NOT cycling on the pavements. They are buying into this measure because they think it will remove that nuisance, they think it will deter cyclists from irritating behaviour which is exceedingly unlikely to result in death or serious injury.
They are mis-selling the law to themselves and would actually be much happier with a bit of police enforcement of petty regulations, with equally petty penalties.

If this law is passed it will make no noticeable difference to "our" conduct or their inconvenience.

It would have made absolutely zero difference to Allinson's conduct if it existed then because the likelihood of him killing somebody through his riding was too low for it to have been a consideration in his mind when deciding how to ride.

[ChrisButch]

I'm hoping for something authoritative on this from Martin Porter, but I notice that's his blog has been inactive since the end of the Alliston case.

[pwa]

If it were possible for me to face a charge of Causing Death (or serious injury) by Dangerous Cycling, it would affect my cycling behaviour not one bit. Because I already try not to take excess speed into potential close encounters with pedestrians. If it makes others behave as I do, great. In reality of course very few people are seriously harmed by being struck by bikes is small so I'd not expect to see many convictions. I'm not really bothered about it.

[bovlomov]

I am saying that the majority of complaints about cyclists from vulnerable users (and disgruntled motorists) are about us being a nuisance to them, cycling on the pavements or NOT cycling on the pavements. They are buying into this measure because they think it will remove that nuisance, they think it will deter cyclists from irritating behaviour which is exceedingly unlikely to result in death or serious injury.

I'm not sure it is that rational.

Slight digression.

I home educate my children. Recently there was a government 'consultation' about compulsory registration (at the moment there is no requirement). What is striking about the consultation paper is the lack of any clear problem that needs solving. There are a few vague concerns expressed about safeguarding and standards, but no statistics given and no arguments are made. I have nothing in principle against registration, but I'd like to think that before committing all those legislative resources and future bureaucratic resources to registration, they'd at least be able to articulate what the problem is and why the proposed action might help.

Beneath everything I detect a resentment that home educators are 'getting away' with something (unspecified), and that is what is motivating the proposed law.

I feel it is the same with this law. I have nothing particularly against it, but the parliamentary effort is disproportionate and the motivations are irrational*.

[*Yes, I know it's about saving lives and preventing injuries... ...but it isn't.]

[pwa]

I am saying that the majority of complaints about cyclists from vulnerable users (and disgruntled motorists) are about us being a nuisance to them, cycling on the pavements or NOT cycling on the pavements. They are buying into this measure because they think it will remove that nuisance, they think it will deter cyclists from irritating behaviour which is exceedingly unlikely to result in death or serious injury.

I'm not sure it is that rational.

Slight digression.

I home educate my children. Recently there was a government 'consultation' about compulsory registration (at the moment there is no requirement). What is striking about the consultation paper is the lack of any clear problem that needs solving. There are a few vague concerns expressed about safeguarding and standards, but no statistics given and no arguments are made. I have nothing in principle against registration, but I'd like to think that before committing all those legislative resources and future bureaucratic resources to registration, they'd at least be able to articulate what the problem is and why the proposed action might help.

Beneath everything I detect a resentment that home educators are 'getting away' with something (unspecified), and that is what is motivating the proposed law.

I feel it is the same with this law. I have nothing particularly against it, but the parliamentary effort is disproportionate and the motivations are irrational*.

[*Yes, I know it's about saving lives and preventing injuries... ...but it isn't.]

If it means that on the rare occasion a cyclist seriously injures or kills someone else, they can be charged with something that sounds like it is made for the purpose, at least it will be tidy. A charge to fit the alleged offence.