Death by Dangerous Cycling

[gaz]

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.

Cycling UK are continuing to ask the government to deliver on their own promise made in 2014 to conduct a general review of road traffic offences.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/just ... ed-drivers

The Justice Secretary also announced his intention to launch a full review of all driving offences and penalties, to ensure people who endanger lives and public safety are properly punished. This will include reviewing offences committed by uninsured and unlicensed drivers.

[mjr]

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.

The law making people drive on the left is from the 1800s too, but few call for that to be replaced. If a law works, it works, no matter its age.

Grayling is trying to knock cyclists down again. Another reason he should go, alongside Thamesunlink, Not-then and Lost NERve.

[mjr]

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?

Only if you think infighting will help

[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?

Only if you think infighting will help

Not sure how this will contribute to infighting?

[Bonefishblues]

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.

The law making people drive on the left is from the 1800s too, but few call for that to be replaced. If a law works, it works, no matter its age.

Grayling is trying to knock cyclists down again. Another reason he should go, alongside Thamesunlink, Not-then and Lost NERve.

AFAIK the left has continued to be the left reasonably consistently since those times, it hasn't changed overmuch.

[alb78]

I was personally a bit upset by the BBC coverage of this this morning. Should we legislate for something that (though tragic when it happens) essentially happens once in a blue moon? Why don't the BBC mention how many people killed by motor traffic every year - I know its a law for cycling but people should get a fair comparison. I agree with CUK position of a full review of all motoring offences as promised by the government previously. That should include close passes. And other aggressive driving, such as swerving in directly in front of cyclists. Unjustified are aggressive behaviour around cyclists (I've been stopped on my bike before and threatened with violence before, just for cycling in the rain), abuse, throwing things at cyclists (happened to me).

[awavey]

.... 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.

the maximum sentence for death by careless driving is 5 years, so the ones in the 8-10+ range, which I must admit I dont recall many if at all in the past 2 years, could only be death by dangerous, or careless driving + drink/drug driving, then its 14 years. But even then the longest sentences Ive seen recently were still only 5-6 years, where both drivers left the scene, one was drunk after visiting 3 seperate pubs, the other driving at speeds upto 80mph on a 50mph road.

both surely demonstrated as much disregard and a guilty mind by driving in the manner they did, did not enter guilty pleas, yet neither got even half the maximum tariff applicable.

and fwiw as was highlighted by a government minister at the time, and is detailed in the consulation document, manslaughter is equally applicable to every death on the road, even those caused by motor vehicles, its simply the CPS for whatever reasons they have, choose not to prosecute on it for cases involving motor vehicles.


everything Im reading in this consulation document, the way the questions are phrased to get the answers they clearly already want, is to equate cycling to be as dangerous to pedestrians as driving motor vehicles is, why is frankly just nonsense sorry

[thirdcrank]

... the maximum sentence for death by careless driving is 5 years, ...

The maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years and there's been a lot of talk recently about this being increased to life imprisonment.

[Cunobelin]

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.

The law making people drive on the left is from the 1800s too, but few call for that to be replaced. If a law works, it works, no matter its age.

Grayling is trying to knock cyclists down again. Another reason he should go, alongside Thamesunlink, Not-then and Lost NERve.

AFAIK the left has continued to be the left reasonably consistently since those times, it hasn't changed overmuch.

Allegedly being on the left was two fold, and much older than the 1800s

The factor is that most of the population is right handed

Firstly people mount horses on the left of the horse and therefore mounting block were on the left of the track
Secondly the idea was to keep your weapon arm on the side which was being approached by potential threats.

However ironically this is part of rule 160 of the Highway Code that is under review... a review supported by the Cycling community.


It really does start to look as if we are happy with old laws and demand change when it suits, but not when they don't.

[mumbojumbo]

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.

I imagine most pedestrians are killed crossing the road,not when on pavement.In our area cycclists use the pavement at high sppeds,and do pose a risk.These cyclist are not insurance holders and I belkieve many policies are invalid for paement cyclists.

[Cunobelin]

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.

I imagine most pedestrians are killed crossing the road,not when on pavement.In our area cycclists use the pavement at high sppeds,and do pose a risk.These cyclist are not insurance holders and I belkieve many policies are invalid for paement cyclists.

This all misses the point where it is about parity. Why should causing death through dangerous operation of any vehicle, not be the same across the board

[The utility cyclist]

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.

Less than one (person riding a bik) per year are 'at fault', the last one was a complete stitch up and applied rules of responsibility for collision beyond that which is applied to motorists.
The whole episode is disgusting and agenda driven rather than fact based.

[pjclinch]

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.

I imagine most pedestrians are killed crossing the road,not when on pavement.In our area cycclists use the pavement at high sppeds,and do pose a risk.These cyclist are not insurance holders and I belkieve many policies are invalid for paement cyclists.

Cunobelin's valid point aside, in a typical year there's something like (citing from memory, may not be properly accurate) 40 deaths of pedestrians on pavements and verges, usually 100% of which are down to motor vehicles. You're far more likely to be killed by a car on a pavement than a bike, despite the illegal use of pavements by many cylists.

Pete.

[The utility cyclist]

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.

I imagine most pedestrians are killed crossing the road,not when on pavement.In our area cycclists use the pavement at high sppeds,and do pose a risk.These cyclist are not insurance holders and I belkieve many policies are invalid for paement cyclists.

This all misses the point where it is about parity. Why should causing death through dangerous operation of any vehicle, not be the same across the board

it is, it's called manslaughter, except the weak willed pander to the larger more dangerous group so won't use that applicable charge.
In fact so pandered are they that those in charge introduced a lesser charge.
Let's see how many 'dangerous' cyclists there are compared to dangerous motorists, there's no parity in application of the law/rules as it is, it's slanted against people riding bikes and has been for a very long time. We are upheld to a higher standard and when a person on a bike is involved with a pedestrian and they die it makes national news and flawed (and IMHO inadmissible) evidence is concocted to prove they were in the wrong.

if it's a motorist everything is done to prove that they were doing nothing unusual, in fact we even have senior police officers defending motorists at the scene of a multiple death exonerating the motorist from the deaths (I'm talking about the 4 poor sods at Rhyll) lying about speed, lying about the actions of the motorist, then we have the CPS and 'justice' system defending them further so that the outcome is a £180 fine
Same scenario for a cyclist and that simply does not happen, in fact you can be trying to avoid the scenario, going at a very slow speed and still be charged with manslaughter, the system is bent as a 9 bob note!

[Postboxer]

Being discussed on Radio 2 now. Quite angry already.

Edit - I'm angry, not them. Can play angry driver bingo if anyone knows where to print the cards from.