Just as a curve ball question -- I wonder what the situation would be if Mr McCombie had been on the bicycle but this time cycling through a green light, Mr Loka steps off the pavement into his path, hits Mr Loka comes off his bike and is killed.
Same result different circumstances. Would Mr Loka still get full blame?
Cowsham wrote:Just as a curve ball question -- I wonder what the situation would be if Mr McCombie had been on the bicycle but this time cycling through a green light, Mr Loka steps off the pavement into his path, hits Mr Loka comes off his bike and is killed.
Same result different circumstances. Would Mr Loka still get full blame?
And for bonus points, no matter who was walking and who was cycling, would the Daily Mail side with the seventysomething NHS administrator or the 23-year-old Albanian-speaker?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Cowsham wrote:Just as a curve ball question -- I wonder what the situation would be if Mr McCombie had been on the bicycle but this time cycling through a green light, Mr Loka steps off the pavement into his path, hits Mr Loka comes off his bike and is killed.
Same result different circumstances. Would Mr Loka still get full blame?
I suggest reading the sentencing remarks in Alliston above. The lights were green when the pedestrian stepped out.
Cowsham wrote:Just as a curve ball question -- I wonder what the situation would be if Mr McCombie had been on the bicycle but this time cycling through a green light, Mr Loka steps off the pavement into his path, hits Mr Loka comes off his bike and is killed.
Same result different circumstances. Would Mr Loka still get full blame?
I suggest reading the sentencing remarks in Alliston above. The lights were green when the pedestrian stepped out.
Jonathan
Playing devils advocate here, you really should be keeping an eye on pedestrians. Any peds even remotely near the edge of the pavement require special care (plus, why where you so close to the pavement anyway?)
Ultimately though when it comes to collisions, peds trump bicycles trump cars etc. (Which imo is exactly how it should be)
Going off-topic, I followed the link to wikipedia above where it said
In England and Wales, this offence is now used to prosecute:
* drivers of horse-drawn carriages and vehicles * motorists who cannot be prosecuted for dangerous driving because they were driving elsewhere than on a road or public place, or because they were not warned that prosecution was intended pursuant to section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 * cyclists who cannot be prosecuted for dangerous cycling because they were cycling elsewhere than on a road, or because they were not warned that prosecution was intended pursuant to section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988[3]
My emphasis
Is there an offence of "dangerous cycling" or is that just something on a legislator's wish list?
6.5_lives_left wrote:Is there an offence of "dangerous cycling" or is that just something on a legislator's wish list?
The hierarchy of offences was a specific focus of the DfT "Cycling Safety Review", linked above.
"Cycling offences are dealt with across a number of pieces of legislation; the most comprehensive is the Road Traffic Act 1988 which contains specific provisions relating to cycling offences (see Annex 1). These include dangerous cycling, careless or inconsiderate cycling, cycling under the influence of drink or drugs as well as the more general offence of failing to give (or giving a false) name or address following an allegation of dangerous or careless cycling. Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 substitutes the offence of dangerous cycling found in the 1988 Act (Annex 2)."
Key stakeholders were invited to comment on the case for an offence for cyclists equivalent to causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless driving (phase 1) so that the views of those that responded could be considered as part of this advice. However, the only written submission received was from Cycling UK.
Re the causing harm by furious driving offence. s 35 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
I've commented before that a lot of important legislation was passed in 1861. It was, in fact, consolidation of a lot of statutes which were already in existence, which is probably why this act is such a rag-bag. The Larceny Act 1861 and the Malicious Damage Act 1861, have both been replaced but the Offences Against the Person Act lingers on. Apart from Common Assault which has been revised only recently with arguably mixed results, the only significant changes have related to punishments.
The Law Commission has laboured long and hard over this and reported in November 2015.
Ref my earlier observations re convicted cyclists, it would appear that a major factor is also that of 'leaving the scene'. Whilst I think such an action is indeed abhorrent, it would appear it isn't a legal requirement for a cyclist to report an accident. We are told that the LAW is what matters in cases, (whether we consider it to be poor or not), yet this aspect (leaving the scene) appears to be strongly referenced by the judges, where a cyclist has been convicted. Some motorists leave the scene of an accident (and it is LAW that they should report), yet the penalty for doing so doesn't seem to be an element of their conviction, or indeed get mentioned as influencing the sentence.
fastpedaller wrote:Ref my earlier observations re convicted cyclists, it would appear that a major factor is also that of 'leaving the scene'. Whilst I think such an action is indeed abhorrent, it would appear it isn't a legal requirement for a cyclist to report an accident. We are told that the LAW is what matters in cases, (whether we consider it to be poor or not), yet this aspect (leaving the scene) appears to be strongly referenced by the judges, where a cyclist has been convicted. Some motorists leave the scene of an accident (and it is LAW that they should report), yet the penalty for doing so doesn't seem to be an element of their conviction, or indeed get mentioned as influencing the sentence.
It seems to vary. I have seen reference to it in some cases, and without any sort of proper analysis, it seems to me to be used primarily in two circumstances: - there is insufficient evidence to convict the driver of anything other than failing to stop and report, especially when it seems very likely that the driver has also driven either carelessly or dangerously, resulting in injury or death - they wish to increase the punichment for a'hardened criminal' or someone who left the scene because they had been drinking or using drugs
xerxes wrote:Speed doesn't appear to be the issue in this case, it's the fact that he allegedly went through a red light.
I'm not sure legally there's much of a difference. You're doing something wrong and as a result someone dies.
The only mitigation you have is that as a cyclist the magnitude of your wrong doing isn't the same as someone in a much bigger vehicle.
The thing is that speed isn't in and of itself illegal on a bike.
The Alliston case green light isn't relevant here, because that was a case of not having legal brakes.
The magnitude of wrongdoing (going through a red light) is the same, the likely consequences are much smaller, but take a look at any set of traffic lights and you'll see a handful of motorists go through red every cycle - it's a routinely flouted signal.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
fastpedaller wrote:it would appear it isn't a legal requirement for a cyclist to report an accident.
Is there a legal definition of the word ‘accident’? I have always had trouble accepting this word in relation to road casualties as it is often the case that the circumstances are not ‘accidental’. It’s far more likely that any scenario is a result of a act of carelessness or recklessness (sometimes deliberate) - but until that’s proven the term ‘incident’ should be used.
The older I get the more I’m inclined to act my shoe size, not my age.
fastpedaller wrote:it would appear it isn't a legal requirement for a cyclist to report an accident.
Is there a legal definition of the word ‘accident’? I have always had trouble accepting this word in relation to road casualties as it is often the case that the circumstances are not ‘accidental’. It’s far more likely that any scenario is a result of a act of carelessness or recklessness (sometimes deliberate) - but until that’s proven the term ‘incident’ should be used.
AFAIK:
The law defines a road traffic accident as a collision involving a vehicle on a road or in a public area that has caused damage or injury to a person, animal, another vehicle or property. You can be the victim of a road accident whether you were driving, a passenger, on foot, riding a bicycle or horse when you sustained the injury
/cat.jpg)
