Death by Dangerous Cycling

User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 3224
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby bovlomov » 14 Aug 2018, 2:43pm

pwa wrote: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.

Perhaps.

I don't like the term whataboutery, as it implies an attempt to distract. Sometimes whataboutery is a plea for proportionality. This law may or may not make the world a better place - I don't know. But I do know that the legislative hours and newspaper column inches given to this could have been employed in thousands of better ways.

Hell - a few quid repairing potholes on a single street would save more death and injury.

thirdcrank
Posts: 27100
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby thirdcrank » 14 Aug 2018, 3:00pm

ChrisButch wrote: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.


At the time of that case - under a heading using some expression like "mis-trial" which was later changed - he suggested that the case might adequately have been dealt with under the regulations covering brakes on pedal cycles. I've no idea of current practice, but I'm pretty sure that had Alliston been stopped and reported for defective brakes on a pedal cycle before the crash, then he would have been likely to have received a caution. IMO MP's strength is civil law.
==========================================================
bovlomov

The Alliston case isn't about speculation: it happened.

FWIW, I think the speculation took place when the parliamentary draughtsmen were preparing the Road Traffic Act and decided that as cyclists were unlikely to kill anybody, there was no need for a specific offence. One question that that enabled them to duck was the maximum penalty. At present, dangerous driving has a max of two years while dangerous cycling is only a fine. As I keep saying, if somebody is killed they are dead. They can't be slightly killed. It's hard to see a justification for a difference in the maximum penalty for the proposed offence.

Re meic's suggestion that we only have road traffic legislation because of motor traffic, I'll reiterate what I said above about there being less legislation affecting pedal cycles than motor vehicles, and the penalties generally being lighter. In an age when traffic enforcement has collapsed, some riders feel less inhibited about the law - in common with a lot of drivers.

brooksby
Posts: 264
Joined: 21 Aug 2014, 9:02am
Location: Bristol

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby brooksby » 14 Aug 2018, 3:35pm

Bonefishblues wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:
brooksby wrote:

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.


Sorry, people, I was trying to lighten the mood a little... :oops:

Bonefishblues
Posts: 4765
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby Bonefishblues » 14 Aug 2018, 3:37pm

brooksby wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:

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.


Sorry, people, I was trying to lighten the mood a little... :oops:

Ah, winky may be required! :lol:

User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 3224
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby bovlomov » 14 Aug 2018, 3:38pm

thirdcrank wrote:The Alliston case isn't about speculation: it happened.

The Alliston case happened, but it doesn't trump other deaths. People die every day as a result of criminality or negligence. More people die every day from misdirection of resources.

I'm not against this law any more than I'm against a death by bouncy castle law. I'd hope the government would allocate resources and pass laws proportionately. If we have x thousand pounds, should we pay a government lawyer to draft this law and pay MPs to vote on it? Are there other laws that would save more lives? Or should we pay someone to fill in some holes?

Bonefishblues
Posts: 4765
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby Bonefishblues » 14 Aug 2018, 3:45pm

We're probably over-legislated as the late John Mortimer used to point out very eloquently, but when something so obviously anachronistic is highlighted, then on balance it's worth fixing, yes.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 43082
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby Mick F » 14 Aug 2018, 3:46pm

Still say, that if you kill someone, you are either guilty of murder, or guilty of manslaughter.
Doesn't matter if you kill them using a car, a bicycle, a scythe, a brick, a bouncy castle ....... or anything. No such thing as an accident, so if someone dies they are dead by dint of a deliberate act or through negligence. Ignorance is no excuse.
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby meic » 14 Aug 2018, 3:49pm

At present, dangerous driving has a max of two years while dangerous cycling is only a fine. As I keep saying, if somebody is killed they are dead. They can't be slightly killed. It's hard to see a justification for a difference in the maximum penalty for the proposed offence.


I can see a difference.

Alliston was a pretty offensive guy with a bad attitude and was likely to hit a pedestrian some time but it was "unlucky" that the collision resulted in death rather than a scraped knee and cut forehead.

Anybody driving a car or HGV and hitting a pedestrian (or cyclist) at normal road speeds could reasonably expect to kill somebody that they hit.
Yma o Hyd

fastpedaller
Posts: 1597
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby fastpedaller » 14 Aug 2018, 4:11pm

meic wrote:
At present, dangerous driving has a max of two years while dangerous cycling is only a fine. As I keep saying, if somebody is killed they are dead. They can't be slightly killed. It's hard to see a justification for a difference in the maximum penalty for the proposed offence.


I can see a difference.

Alliston was a pretty offensive guy with a bad attitude and was likely to hit a pedestrian some time but it was "unlucky" that the collision resulted in death rather than a scraped knee and cut forehead.

Anybody driving a car or HGV and hitting a pedestrian (or cyclist) at normal road speeds could reasonably expect to kill somebody that they hit.


Which brings me to question what the authorities or 'the jury' would consider to be dangerous cycling eg lots of 'average' people (motorists?) expect cyclists to be moving at about 8mph or so (giving rise to SMIDSY incidences?) so would a regular cyclist have the dangerous charge put on him (if a pedestrian/cyclist incident happened) and he was riding at 15-20mph which I'm sure to most of us is typical ( and safe), and certainly below the posted speed limits?

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby meic » 14 Aug 2018, 4:16pm

A lot was made of the fact that Alliston was dangerously doing "up to 18mph" in an area where cars would have been expected to be doing 30mph give or take some.
Yma o Hyd

thirdcrank
Posts: 27100
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby thirdcrank » 14 Aug 2018, 4:18pm

meic wrote:I can see a difference.

Alliston was a pretty offensive guy with a bad attitude and was likely to hit a pedestrian some time but it was "unlucky" that the collision resulted in death rather than a scraped knee and cut forehead.

Anybody driving a car or HGV and hitting a pedestrian (or cyclist) at normal road speeds could reasonably expect to kill somebody that they hit.


If I've understood you correctly, it's the matter of whether the punishment is based on the act (including the accused's state of mind) or the result of the act. If the result is human death then any offence is generally moved up into a completely different category. So, we seem to have developed the cliché "one punch manslaughter" to cover cases where somebody died as the unintended side-effect of what might otherwise have been a common assault. 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.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby meic » 14 Aug 2018, 4:23pm

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.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 43082
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby Mick F » 14 Aug 2018, 4:28pm

meic wrote:I can see the reasoning for having a different penalty for acts with a likely outcome compared to a possible outcome.
I can't.
One is "likely" the other is "possible"?

There isn't a delineation. It's all one thing by degrees.
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby meic » 14 Aug 2018, 4:34pm

There isn't a delineation

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.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 43082
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Death by Dangerous Cycling

Postby Mick F » 14 Aug 2018, 4:44pm

Still don't agree.
If you kill someone they are dead .......... to paraphrase TC.

IMHO, we should do away with all the differences of vehicles, bicycles, lorries ................. and any other means and have the same charges across the board.
Mick F. Cornwall