Death by Dangerous Cycling

[thirdcrank]

Third party insurance covers civil ie compo claims from others - the third parties. It's worth having whether this new offence is created or not, but I cannot see how a new offence would somehow make it more worthwhile. Compo after a crash is assessed on negligence and the extent of injuries and other losses such as damage.

[Cunobelin]

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.

The problem with the cyclists don't kill or maim view is that although this may be the case if the person hit 1t 10 mph on the pavement is a fit strapping 6' 2" rugby player who can absorb the injury, if it a frail 5' pensioner with osteoporosis and poor balance then the same impact will be catastrophic.

As an argument it is extremely flawed.

[hemo]

This action may now have more impetus as a lady in a London yesterday afternoon was seriously injured and left fighting for life after being hit by a fast e-biker, sounds like red light may have been run.


https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ ... 21976.html

[reohn2]

This action may now have more impetus as a lady in a London yesterday afternoon was seriously injured and left fighting for life after being hit by a fast e-biker, sounds like red light may have been run.


https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ ... 21976.html

Reading that link it sounds as though the bike could've been stolen or was illegal and the rider did a runner.

[botty]

I wonder how many pedestrians were injured by motor vehicles yesterday?

[pete75]

I wonder how many pedestrians were injured by motor vehicles yesterday?

Probably quite a few in London alone. It's the rarity of incidents where cyclists seriously injure a third party that makes them news and that then causes a massive overreaction.

[reohn2]

I wonder how many pedestrians were injured by motor vehicles yesterday?

Probably quite a few in London alone. It's the rarity of incidents where cyclists seriously injure a third party that makes them news and that then causes a massive overreaction.

In the link there was another article about a police car pursuing another car in central London which resulted in car being persued crashing injuring four people.
I am sure there'd be many other crashes involving cars in central London yesterday.

[Richard D]

Footage from that London collision shows very clearly that the lights were on GREEN for the road traffic (including the e-bike rider), and RED for the pedestrian. The e-bike rider was almost in the middle of the road, not close to the pavement. Yet the pedestrian ran - not walked, ran - into the road, intent on crossing without looking properly.

Yet the Sun headline still says that she was "mown down" by the cyclist!

This incident ought to strengthen calls for legislation making helmet wearing compulsory for pedestrians, and also for offences to be introduced where pedestrians cause an injury or accident.

Okay, that last point is unnecessary - there already are such offences. Just as there are when cyclists injure someone. Only I’m unaware of anyone being prosecuted for those offences.

[Cunobelin]

Footage from that London collision shows very clearly that the lights were on GREEN for the road traffic (including the e-bike rider), and RED for the pedestrian. The e-bike rider was almost in the middle of the road, not close to the pavement. Yet the pedestrian ran - not walked, ran - into the road, intent on crossing without looking properly.

Yet the Sun headline still says that she was "mown down" by the cyclist!

This incident ought to strengthen calls for legislation making helmet wearing compulsory for pedestrians, and also for offences to be introduced where pedestrians cause an injury or accident.

Okay, that last point is unnecessary - there already are such offences. Just as there are when cyclists injure someone. Only I’m unaware of anyone being prosecuted for those offences.

The big problem here is that yet again the charge is archaic

The relevance of guilt of fault is irrelevant here

Whatever happens, the point that will be embrued and used to support the review is that yet again there is no current legislation, and we are prosecuting under an. archaic law.

[thirdcrank]

... we are prosecuting under an. archaic law.

The Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 is still the principle legislation dealing with violence and is in regular use for offences like GBH. Although it has been amended from time, it the only one of the major consolidation statutes of 1861 which survives. Sooner or later it will be replaced and causing injury by furiously driving a carriage seems unlikely to survive.

[Cunobelin]

Except, it is becoming increasingly unacceptable in the public eye to have to use such laws for what are basically road traffic offences. They want an equal law for cyclists to bring what they see as "parity"