Death by Dangerous Cycling
-
- Posts: 982
- Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm
Death by Dangerous Cycling
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
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
Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling
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.
1700 road deaths a year, 450 pedestrians killed each year, of which 2 or 3 involve bicycles.
Sherwood CC and Notts CTC.
A cart horse trapped in the body of a man.
http://www.jogler2009.blogspot.com
A cart horse trapped in the body of a man.
http://www.jogler2009.blogspot.com
Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling
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
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.
-
- Posts: 2199
- Joined: 20 May 2011, 11:23am
- Location: South Birmingham
Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling
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.
Brompton, Condor Heritage, creaky joints and thinning white (formerly 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 !
""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 !
Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling
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.
If you cause a death by any means, it's manslaughter or murder.
Mick F. Cornwall
Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling
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...
-
- Posts: 534
- Joined: 8 Nov 2016, 7:50pm
Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling
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?
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?
Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling
At the risk of over-reacting, if CyclingUK allow this to become law, they become a dog with no teeth.
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling
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.
Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling
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
Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling
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?
Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling
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...
Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling
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
Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling
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...
Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling
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.