Death by Dangerous Cycling

[661-Pete]

My guess is, this is going to end up on the statute books, and I've got worse things to worry about than this. Let it happen and let the flak subside.

As we all know, deaths involving a cyclist (and no other vehicle) hitting a pedestrian or other cyclist are incredibly rare, and even when one occurs, a charge under this Law is going to be most unlikely. The Alliston case is, sadly, the exception which proves the rule.

If such a Law is formulated, it will have to embody a definition of "dangerous cycling". That for "dangerous driving" describes it as driving such that:

the way [the driver] drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous;
or
if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state (for the purpose of the determination of which regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it, and to the manner in which it is attached or carried) would be dangerous.

This is hard enough to prove in a motoring prosecution - which is probably why the lesser charge of Causing Death by Careless Driving was introduced.

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?

[meic]

This is hard enough to prove in a motoring prosecution

Because the jury will always be stuffed with motorists.

I think it would be even harder to prove in the case of a cyclist.

I doubt that it would be coming in front of a jury stuffed full of cyclists, so the jury would be applying sterner standards without the "that could have been me standing there!" thoughts nibbling at their consciences.

[Bonefishblues]

My guess is, this is going to end up on the statute books, and I've got worse things to worry about than this. Let it happen and let the flak subside.

As we all know, deaths involving a cyclist (and no other vehicle) hitting a pedestrian or other cyclist are incredibly rare, and even when one occurs, a charge under this Law is going to be most unlikely. The Alliston case is, sadly, the exception which proves the rule.

If such a Law is formulated, it will have to embody a definition of "dangerous cycling". That for "dangerous driving" describes it as driving such that:

the way [the driver] drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous;
or
if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state (for the purpose of the determination of which regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it, and to the manner in which it is attached or carried) would be dangerous.

This is hard enough to prove in a motoring prosecution - which is probably why the lesser charge of Causing Death by Careless Driving was introduced.

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?

In a nutshell.

[reohn2]

Certainly not defending those who ride recklessly on the pavement, but those 3 cases could also have been on the road (the one we all know about certainly was). And the assumption is that the cyclist is always at fault, rather than a jaywalking pedestrian.

But there isn't a jaywalking law in the UK.

Thinking about this a little more,how do we think a deah by dangerous cycling law,will effect cycling in the UK?

Probably very little except for those who choose to ride dangerously (and give the rest of us a bad press)

It doesn't have much effect on the drivers of motors that drive dangerously ......

[Bonefishblues]

But we don't (and can't) know whether there are drivers, or riders, whose behaviour is changed by the possibility of sanctions, of course.

[reohn2]

My guess is, this is going to end up on the statute books, and I've got worse things to worry about than this. Let it happen and let the flak subside.

As we all know, deaths involving a cyclist (and no other vehicle) hitting a pedestrian or other cyclist are incredibly rare, and even when one occurs, a charge under this Law is going to be most unlikely. The Alliston case is, sadly, the exception which proves the rule.

If such a Law is formulated, it will have to embody a definition of "dangerous cycling". That for "dangerous driving" describes it as driving such that:

the way [the driver] drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous;
or
if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state (for the purpose of the determination of which regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it, and to the manner in which it is attached or carried) would be dangerous.

This is hard enough to prove in a motoring prosecution - which is probably why the lesser charge of Causing Death by Careless Driving was introduced.

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?

In a nutshell.

Quite!

[661-Pete]

I wasn't asking, "what would the jury's opinion be, of a cyclist charged with Death by Dangerous Cycling?". I was asking, "how would a barrister present the case fairly and unequivocally, to the jury?".

Remember that, whatever a jury's prejudice and bias may be, the Judge may always direct them to return Not Guilty. And they can't demur from that instruction.

[awavey]

My guess is, this is going to end up on the statute books, and I've got worse things to worry about than this. Let it happen and let the flak subside.

As we all know, deaths involving a cyclist (and no other vehicle) hitting a pedestrian or other cyclist are incredibly rare, and even when one occurs, a charge under this Law is going to be most unlikely. The Alliston case is, sadly, the exception which proves the rule.

If such a Law is formulated, it will have to embody a definition of "dangerous cycling". That for "dangerous driving" describes it as driving such that:

the way [the driver] drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous;
or
if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state (for the purpose of the determination of which regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it, and to the manner in which it is attached or carried) would be dangerous.

This is hard enough to prove in a motoring prosecution - which is probably why the lesser charge of Causing Death by Careless Driving was introduced.

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?

read any below the comments piece from any media outlet covering an article on cycling, they are even turning up on the Independent now so its not just the usual suspects. You can easily find a jury of 12 people who would have no trouble being convinced cycling in itself is a thoroughly dangerous activity and should be stopped completely, theyd have no difficulty imaging what their view of a competent careful cyclist, and I guarantee it wont be anything like what you or I or anyone who rides a bike day in day out think it is.

dont focus just on the edge case of the death by dangerous law, the consultation also includes a new dangerous cycling causing serious injury law as well,

and there were 2,491 recorded collisions between cyclists and pedestrians 2011-2016, 546 resulted in serious injury, so thats at least 546 new cases that could be brought under this new serious injury law with a maximum 5 year prison sentence, the same sentencing guideline as is applied to motorists.

suddenly do you feel as secure it wont impact you ? fancy riding on a shared path now with these kinds of laws in place and find yourself then trying to explain to a jury of the likes of people who think putting tacks/nails on the road, fishing wire at head height on cycle paths or who shove walking sticks through front wheels, just because you ride a bike, let alone having done nothing "wrong" or acted in anyway wrongly towards them, they just did it because they dont like what you are.

"but I was only cycling at 12mph on the shared path", thats a bit dangerous and fast when people are only walking at 5mph isnt it ? "they just stepped out round the corner and they were looking at their phone", so you freely admit cycling at excess speed where there are corners pedestrians might step out from unsighted and you werent prepared to stop for them, "but its bad infra", excuses excuses you should have ridden slower, stopped, walked with the bike, rung your bell, worn a helmet, hi vis instead, and theres no evidence they were using their phone to make a call is there ? but but but...case closed.the jury who will now all drive home, finds you guilty.

its the thin end of the wedge, and I cant believe so many are being so sanguine about the impacts of this

[Postboxer]

It possibly also sends a message to potential cyclists that it is dangerous and any little mistakes are going to lead to prosecution.

[Cunobelin]

My guess is, this is going to end up on the statute books, and I've got worse things to worry about than this. Let it happen and let the flak subside.

As we all know, deaths involving a cyclist (and no other vehicle) hitting a pedestrian or other cyclist are incredibly rare, and even when one occurs, a charge under this Law is going to be most unlikely. The Alliston case is, sadly, the exception which proves the rule.

If such a Law is formulated, it will have to embody a definition of "dangerous cycling". That for "dangerous driving" describes it as driving such that:

the way [the driver] drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous;
or
if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state (for the purpose of the determination of which regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it, and to the manner in which it is attached or carried) would be dangerous.

This is hard enough to prove in a motoring prosecution - which is probably why the lesser charge of Causing Death by Careless Driving was introduced.

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?

You are correct the issue was that the charge or reckless driving was often ver hard to prove and therefore the culprit would not be charged. The Careless driving was easier to prove

In October 2017 the Government also started the processor introducing a charge of "Causing Injury through careless driving to allow prosecution of drivers who injure as opposed to kill

I think that it can be proven in the case of cyclists, and often quite simply

In most recent cases where there has been a death it has clearly been cyclists speeding on pavements, illegal bicycles, and other factors that are clearly "would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist"?

In other cases (as with drivers) it will rely on the Highway Code as annealing document, and whether this rules were obeyed.

[thirdcrank]

I'm surprised that anybody is surprised at the hostility towards cyclists in some quarters. eg It was revealed in Road Research Laboratory research years ago that cyclists were considered an "out group" but the CTC dismissed it as the imagination of grumpy old cyclists. That hostility is a fact. It has to be tackled but I suspect cyclists only reinforce it by trying to justify dangerous cycling, even when the effects of that are generally so much less than dangerous driving.

We now seem to be unclear whether we are saying that the injuries caused by cyclists are so few as not to merit a change in the law, or that there are loads just waiting to be prosecuted.

On one hand, furious cycling is out-of-date but on the other we don't want it replacing.

Against this background, the approach taken by CyclingUK seems the right one in difficult circumstances.

[reohn2]

read any below the comments piece from any media outlet covering an article on cycling, they are even turning up on the Independent now so its not just the usual suspects. You can easily find a jury of 12 people who would have no trouble being convinced cycling in itself is a thoroughly dangerous activity and should be stopped completely, theyd have no difficulty imaging what their view of a competent careful cyclist, and I guarantee it wont be anything like what you or I or anyone who rides a bike day in day out think it is.

dont focus just on the edge case of the death by dangerous law, the consultation also includes a new dangerous cycling causing serious injury law as well,

and there were 2,491 recorded collisions between cyclists and pedestrians 2011-2016, 546 resulted in serious injury, so thats at least 546 new cases that could be brought under this new serious injury law with a maximum 5 year prison sentence, the same sentencing guideline as is applied to motorists.

suddenly do you feel as secure it wont impact you ? fancy riding on a shared path now with these kinds of laws in place and find yourself then trying to explain to a jury of the likes of people who think putting tacks/nails on the road, fishing wire at head height on cycle paths or who shove walking sticks through front wheels, just because you ride a bike, let alone having done nothing "wrong" or acted in anyway wrongly towards them, they just did it because they dont like what you are.

"but I was only cycling at 12mph on the shared path", thats a bit dangerous and fast when people are only walking at 5mph isnt it ? "they just stepped out round the corner and they were looking at their phone", so you freely admit cycling at excess speed where there are corners pedestrians might step out from unsighted and you werent prepared to stop for them, "but its bad infra", excuses excuses you should have ridden slower, stopped, walked with the bike, rung your bell, worn a helmet, hi vis instead, and theres no evidence they were using their phone to make a call is there ? but but but...case closed.the jury who will now all drive home, finds you guilty.

its the thin end of the wedge, and I cant believe so many are being so sanguine about the impacts of this

How many situations such as you mention have you been involved in whilst you were cycling ?
IMHO like a careful and considerate motorist a careful and considerate cyclist needn't be involved in collisions.

[DBridge]

Please don't keep your opinions to chat rooms but make sure you answer the consultation. Cycling UK: some guidance on how we might do this could come in handy.

[thirdcrank]

I hadn't realised that as well as publishing the consultation document, the government spinners had tied this in with a squalid social media attack on cyclists. I found this in the Daily Mirror - no paywall etc., - which gives an interesting summary of Chris Boardman's response and concludes with CyclingUK's statement
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... s-13074415

[Cunobelin]

I'm surprised that anybody is surprised at the hostility towards cyclists in some quarters. eg It was revealed in Road Research Laboratory research years ago that cyclists were considered an "out group" but the CTC dismissed it as the imagination of grumpy old cyclists. That hostility is a fact. It has to be tackled but I suspect cyclists only reinforce it by trying to justify dangerous cycling, even when the effects of that are generally so much less than dangerous driving.

We now seem to be unclear whether we are saying that the injuries caused by cyclists are so few as not to merit a change in the law, or that there are loads just waiting to be prosecuted.

On one hand, furious cycling is out-of-date but on the other we don't want it replacing.

Against this background, the approach taken by CyclingUK seems the right one in difficult circumstances.

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