Death by Dangerous Cycling

[thirdcrank]

... There is a delineation, it comes with the engine.

It may not be without a small overlap but it is there and they saw that when they made the original regulations.

Unfortunately, we are back to the suspect's state of mind mens rea Whatever anybody thinks, with the exception of losing control down a steep hill, the speed of a pedal cyclist is pretty much in proportion to the effort they are making so mens rea is perhaps easier to prove (and even easier if the suspect goes slack gobbing on social media.)

The furiously driving a carriage offence was worded in that way so as not to penalise somebody whose horses bolted, but to cover somebody in "don't spare the horses" mode.

And before anybody says it, it may not be an appropriate charge for a cyclist, which is why there are proposals to change it.

[meic]

I think that is a separate issue.

He is guilty of the offence by virtue of mens rea.
The penalty attached to the guilt should reflect the likely outcome of the conduct.

[thirdcrank]

I'm not sure which is the separate issue, but as I said, I don't have any difficulty anticipating the possibility of serious injury if a cyclist is in a collision. The fact that the injuries will tend to be of a much greater order if a motor vehicle is involved, doesn't IMO, entitle a cyclist to disregard the safety of others.

[pwa]

I think that is a separate issue.

He is guilty of the offence by virtue of mens rea.
The penalty attached to the guilt should reflect the likely outcome of the conduct.

Likely outcome or reasonably foreseeable outcome? If someone cycles around a corner too fast and clatters into me they are likely to cause me nothing more than superficial injuries. Probably the same for any healthy adult above a certain size. But if they hit a more fragile pedestrian, such as my elderly mother or a small child, the results could be much worse. The chances of finding a fragile pedestrian around that corner might be small, but still foreseeable. Just because an outcome is unlikely does not mean it should not be factored in to one's cycling.

[meic]

Just because an outcome is unlikely does not mean it should not be factored in to one's cycling.

Agreed and that is why I am not saying it should clear you of any offence, just that it should be a lesser offence. If alternatives are being set up to manslaughter. If there is no gradation of offences then why not just have universal manslaughter?

[thirdcrank]

... I am not saying it should clear you of any offence, just that it should be a lesser offence. ...

Your earlier post along those lines prompted me to mention ASBO's but you never said what you had in mind.

Anyway, it seems to me that causing death by dangerous cycling - depending on how it was defined - would be just such a lesser offence. The only problem then, as I see it lies in setting the maximum punishment, which is one of the things I've been hammering on about. Dangerous cycling is already an offence and FWIW, I don't think the courts are packed out with cases. It attracts only a fine, but as I keep saying, if somebody is likked they are dead. Of course, the maximum is rarely imposed for any offence, so sentencing guidelines could tailor this to the relative lack of a threat posed by cyclists.

I think it's also worth considering the suggestion that Alliston was somehow mixed a bottle because he was a cyclist. I'd point out that KSI collisions are now the priority, which is why things are in such a mess: you have to kill somebody - or come close to it - in a crash before the police take much interest. This was a a KSI crash so it was investigated as such and the evidence was there by the bucketful, without much digging.

[Cunobelin]

I'm in no doubt about the possibility of injury if 10 stones of cyclist travelling at 15 mph is in a collision. One of the things that stops it happening more is that the injury is often sustained by the rider.

Possibility is a very wide net. Likelihood is much more restrictive term.

I can see the reasoning for having a different penalty for acts with a likely outcome compared to a possible outcome.

Stating that cyclists don't kill is a poor argument in a case where someone has unequivocally just killed someone!

[meic]

It would be wouldnt it?

The fact that you bring it up while quoting me implies that you managed to see such an argument where it doesnt exist.

[Postboxer]

What about pedestrians, should they be included in new laws? It's possible a jogger could knock someone over causing injury or death.

[fastpedaller]

The point I made in my earlier post (re cycling speed) could be used against a cyclist, though would probably be disregarded if the vehicles involved was a car? Consider the following scenario....... A 'seafront' road I've been along many times presents a problem where pedestrians just treat it as a 'pedestrianised area' (it isn't and is a 2-way road with 30mph limit) - pedestrians just step off the pavement without looking, and I've had to take avoiding action (having reducing my speed to 10mph and ringing my bell or shouting) on a number of occasions. They seem totally oblivious, so aside from not moving there isn't more I can do to mitigate the danger. If a cyclist (who hasn't been there before) rode along there they could be (quite reasonably, without any prior knowledge of the antics of these pedestrians) riding at 20mph and the outcome could be serious, - the witnesses would come forward saying he was going too fast etc etc. A motorist doing the same 20mph would be immediately held to be not liable by the same witnesses who state "he wasn't going fast"
Maybe now is the time to press for cars to have lower speed limits compared with human-powered vehicles? After all, it makes sense because the heavy vehicles can do a lot more damage. But of course the motorist HAS to get somewhere fast, it's now in our constitution! only 2 days ago a passenger leant out of a car window and shouted to me "GET OUT OF THE WAY" whilst I was doing 20MPH on a single track road! Where did he expected me to go to - I've no idea, but an example of what we encounter from folk who most would consider to be reasonable people in other circumstances.

[reohn2]

The point I made in my earlier post (re cycling speed) could be used against a cyclist, though would probably be disregarded if the vehicles involved was a car? Consider the following scenario....... A 'seafront' road I've been along many times presents a problem where pedestrians just treat it as a 'pedestrianised area' (it isn't and is a 2-way road with 30mph limit) - pedestrians just step off the pavement without looking, and I've had to take avoiding action (having reducing my speed to 10mph and ringing my bell or shouting) on a number of occasions. They seem totally oblivious, so aside from not moving there isn't more I can do to mitigate the danger. If a cyclist (who hasn't been there before) rode along there they could be (quite reasonably, without any prior knowledge of the antics of these pedestrians) riding at 20mph and the outcome could be serious, - the witnesses would come forward saying he was going too fast etc etc. A motorist doing the same 20mph would be immediately held to be not liable by the same witnesses who state "he wasn't going fast"

That scenario would need to be tested in court to be proven one way or the other.
The case agains Alliston,which is where all this stems from,was based around him riding an illegal bike and claiming on social media that it wasn't his fault.If his bike had been legal and if he hadn't shouted obscenities at the dead woman and had rung a bell(however useless a bell would been)there'd have been no case to answer.
Constantly we're reminded on the forum that one shouldn't ride at a speed where they can't stop safely enough in the event an unexpected incident.
Only yesterday on a ride passing a crowd of teenagers I moved out to primary as I passed them at 15mph covering my brakes for the sake of both their safety and mine

Maybe now is the time to press for cars to have lower speed limits compared with human-powered vehicles? After all, it makes sense because the heavy vehicles can do a lot more damage. But of course the motorist HAS to get somewhere fast, it's now in our constitution!

I don't think anyone will argue with that point and that traffic policing is abysmal

only 2 days ago a passenger leant out of a car window and shouted to me "GET OUT OF THE WAY" whilst I was doing 20MPH on a single track road! Where did he expected me to go to - I've no idea, but an example of what we encounter from folk who most would consider to be reasonable people in other circumstances.

Unfortunately idiot drivers abound on UK roads as a direct result of a lack of policing which has also IMO,fostered a feeling of invincibility and a feeling of rights that some drivers erroneously believe they have over vulnerable road users.
When there's no one to make them toe the line and abide by the law they'll act and do as they wish.
All of which is a subject of anoher thread and has nothing to do with cycling law which IMO needs updating and would protect law abiding cyclists,we simply must be accountable for our actions and if our actions are lawful we have nothing to worry about.

[CubbyJaggy]

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?

I have insurance I paid £6 a month and it covers my bike me and all my bike accessories from theft and damage and it also covers me if I hit anyone too

[fastpedaller]

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?

I have insurance I paid £6 a month and it covers my bike me and all my bike accessories from theft and damage and it also covers me if I hit anyone too

Compelling motorists to have insurance is designed to protect any victim, and on the whole is of benefit (aside from the issue of those who don't buy it). There is a consideration, though, that if the motorist is 'covered by insurance' that the level of care and dedication to their driving may not be as high as it could be.

[CubbyJaggy]

I am not sure about that I got insurance because If I cause an Accident and have no insurance I know it is one of the things that pisses off motorists. So its just some ammunition I can take away from them. But also it covers my bike and accessories against loss and theft up to 500 quid and also I have £1million worth of public liability insurance. I am not saying it should be mandatory cos then the price will rise from £6 to silly numbers that motorists have to pay. The reason its so cheap is because it isn't mandatory

[tatanab]

The reason its so cheap is because it isn't mandatory

The reason it is cheap is that the risk (to the underwriter) of a third party claim is very low. So low that third party insurance is given FREE as a benefit of many cycling organisations. Your £6 a month (£72 a year) is not what I would call cheap to insure a limit of £500 in bike and accessories, but it is probably a cycling specific insurance policy which tends to be expensive (typical premiums of 10% of the value insured) versus cover through house contents insurance.