Daily Mail Vs The Cyclist : What's at stake?

[cycle tramp]

Just a couple of things;

Point the first - the law 'death or serious injury through inconsiderate or dangerous driving' will not not be set in this parliament session. A general election had been called, all usual business has been suspended..
..I suspect this draft will be quietly forgotten by the next parliament (depending on which colour achieves a majority, and by how much) until a similar tragedy occurs, and then it will be dusted off and revisited...

...let's hope it doesn't happen again., and by thar I mean 'lets work towards it not happening again'.

[cycle tramp]

Point the second;

I lived in Germany for a number of years with the Forces. If a national newspaper attacked a popular group like cyclists there would be uproar, there would be more than uproar, there would be violent reaction.

Journalistic standards in this country have imo reached an all time low, where the reproduction of outright lies and hyperbolic storytelling goes fairly unchallenged.

Not since between the first and second World Wars, was cycling considered 'popular'. Harold Wilsons 'white hot pace of technological revolution' and Margaret Thatcher's 'great car economy' effectively broadsided the idea of cycling as mass transit, and for those of us arguing for more cycle facilities (as late as the mid nineties), we were told by the department of transport 'that cycling was too dangerous for the government to encourage'...

Journalistic standards in many papers have always been this low. The papers have just got better at understanding where the edges of 'slander' and 'liable' are.
At this point I'm not sure what you mean by 'violent action' - torch the presses? Hang a couple of Journalists from lamp posts? - heck, perhaps kidnap their children and hold them to ransom? It's a big world - people are gonna do things you don't like and say things you don't like. However at some point during your life - you will reach that point of understanding that what people say and what people do around you is less important than how you react to them.

It's a big world, and there's other points to consider such as the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. If you Google 'Bill Hicks' he makes a very strong case for the ideal of freedom of speech. Journalists have been killed in the past for attempting to tell the truth about conflicts, organised crimes and environmental destruction. There's alot of people who want to stop the presses... many of whom are not very nice people, and would very much like to remain hidden from the public gaze. What sort if world would it be if everyone who didn't like what the papers wrote destroyed them?

[Nearholmer]

Free Press - good

Unaccountable Press - bad

(and in my mind “press” extends to internet “publishers” including, oddly enough, those who “publish” this forum, which can be regarded as a “reader authored publication”)

So, how to define an appropriate mechanism of accountability, and how to enforce it? I have absolutely no idea, but I do know that the present ones are useless except in very odd circumstances.

[drossall]

Corrections are not generally published as prominently as the original headlines, the toning down of the recent Telegraph article about 52mph cyclists being a case in point. I've often thought that the media should be required to have on their mastheads or similar some kind of index of the number of stories that they have been forced to correct or withdraw. "Our reliability last year was 64%" ought to have some kind of effect on the way I read the latest blockbuster story, surely?

[mattheus]

Corrections are not generally published as prominently as the original headlines, the toning down of the recent Telegraph article about 52mph cyclists being a case in point. I've often thought that the media should be required to have on their mastheads or similar some kind of index of the number of stories that they have been forced to correct or withdraw. "Our reliability last year was 64%" ought to have some kind of effect on the way I read the latest blockbuster story, surely?

yup.

[mattheus]

Point the second;

I lived in Germany for a number of years with the Forces. If a national newspaper attacked a popular group like cyclists there would be uproar, there would be more than uproar, there would be violent reaction.

Journalistic standards in this country have imo reached an all time low, where the reproduction of outright lies and hyperbolic storytelling goes fairly unchallenged.

Not since between the first and second World Wars, was cycling considered 'popular'. Harold Wilsons 'white hot pace of technological revolution' and Margaret Thatcher's 'great car economy' effectively broadsided the idea of cycling as mass transit, and for those of us arguing for more cycle facilities (as late as the mid nineties), we were told by the department of transport 'that cycling was too dangerous for the government to encourage'...

Mr Tramp,
Have you noted that Joe is talking about GERMANY?

[cycle tramp]

Point the second;

I lived in Germany for a number of years with the Forces. If a national newspaper attacked a popular group like cyclists there would be uproar, there would be more than uproar, there would be violent reaction.

Journalistic standards in this country have imo reached an all time low, where the reproduction of outright lies and hyperbolic storytelling goes fairly unchallenged.

Not since between the first and second World Wars, was cycling considered 'popular'. Harold Wilsons 'white hot pace of technological revolution' and Margaret Thatcher's 'great car economy' effectively broadsided the idea of cycling as mass transit, and for those of us arguing for more cycle facilities (as late as the mid nineties), we were told by the department of transport 'that cycling was too dangerous for the government to encourage'...

Mr Tramp,
Have you noted that Joe is talking about GERMANY?

Indeed. However the mail, the express and the telegraph are all papers written for the British Market and as such i concluded that as the readership is British, the usual British cultural references apply - one which has been shaped by a number of sound bites from politicians who were less than progressive when it came to environmental protection and safe guarding.

[JerseyJoe]

I'm simply stating the fact that large unified groups (to some degree we all share the same roads/and the dangers thereof/antipathy from drivers) like cyclists are very well motivated and organised in other countries (I've lived in quite a few). That's especially true of Germany and France where politicians are vulnerable to green and environmental and sports organised voting.

They are are way more practical and hands on abroad (And yes I would like to see the author of '52mph' named and shamed in print). In Germany for instance, when the pace of cycle routes and safety equipment/signalling was too slow in the late 80's, thousands of cyclists simply blocaded the city centre every weekend and nothing could move in or out for several hours at a time. This carried on for the whole summer until the dam burst and the local council caved in. As I remember there was a lot of manure suddenly appeared outside civic buildings overnight. I mean a lot Scheisse!

We're too meek in Britain. I'm finding it hard to believe there's not been more of an outrcry over the 14 year sentencing. And I'm also finding it hard to come to terms with the fact that cycling looks to be on the legislative agenda, it's definitely on the radar and it's certain that more laws will follow.

I started cycling mainly to improve my job prospects, but soon realised it provided great liberty and personal freedom. Two things which I believe are in danger, especially with the bad breath of the Telegraph and The Mail behind it. I fear those things we cherish and ought not to take for granted are in peril.

[cycle tramp]

I'm simply stating the fact that large unified groups (to some degree we all share the same roads/and the dangers thereof/antipathy from drivers) like cyclists are very well motivated and organised in other countries (I've lived in quite a few). That's especially true of Germany and France where politicians are vulnerable to green and environmental and sports organised voting.

They are are way more practical and hands on abroad (And yes I would like to see the author of '52mph' named and shamed in print). In Germany for instance, when the pace of cycle routes and safety equipment/signalling was too slow in the late 80's, thousands of cyclists simply blocaded the city centre every weekend and nothing could move in or out for several hours at a time. This carried on for the whole summer until the dam burst and the local council caved in. As I remember there was a lot of manure suddenly appeared outside civic buildings overnight. I mean a lot Scheisse!

We're too meek in Britain. I'm finding it hard to believe there's not been more of an outrcry over the 14 year sentencing.

I started cycling mainly to improve my job prospects, but soon realised it provided great liberty and personal freedom. Two things which I believe are in danger, especially with the bad breath of the Telegraph and The Mail behind it. I fear those things we cherish and ought not to take for granted are in peril.

Apologies for the delay in my response - Internet connection issues.

You have raised some very valid points in an eloquent manner and I could not agree with you more. The original law for causing 'death or injury through inconsiderate or dangerous cycling' was in my opinion hastily drafted and far too vague- leaving it for the courts to decide on a case by case basis as what constituted dangerous or inconsiderate cycling.
Although this law has been indefinitely delayed, it has already affected my cycling habits - i now wear a hi-viz on a cycle/walkingpath - incase I encounter people of very poor vision, I now note down every time I examine or repair my bike to prove a record that I do carry out maintenance, and have joined the ctc for the insurance... at some point I will fit a bell... and all this is done to provide evidence that I am a considerate bike rider. Habits that I would have scoffed at before this law was written.
The law was also politically motivated, and if the current administration wished to save lives, they should have invested more heavily into mental health care.
You say that here in Britain we are too meek. I totally agree and will raise the charge from 'meek' to 'apathetic'. There should have been a national strike when it was found Tony Blair had lied to the public and a second national strike should have been called when Boris Johnson did the same. Instead nothing happened.
The question remains how to oppose a bill, written seemlying to safeguard the rights of pedestrians and other cycle riders, without looking like you are championing those who are breaching the highway code?

[JerseyJoe]

Thanks for your kind words. Needless to say I'm very concerned that this legislation (amendments passed into law) is only the first in an array of laws that will be foisted upon us as soon as convictions go 'live'. It's went through (imo) without a whimper, or even any riposte from pro cycling politicians or celebrities.

Evidently it's part of a carefully constructed sequence, a series of knee jerk 'vote winning ' laws like the Rwanda fiasco and National Service: desperate last dicth attempts to shift the polls after 14 years of incompetence and downright skullduggery (never mind proven law breaking on behalf of several politicians no longer with us).

Like I said up thread, it appears it's open season on cyclists, even if they polls aren't shifting, the consequences are surely more and more legislation to prove (or disprove) we are 'safe and responsible road users'. And who gets to decide that? Judges probably, who have never thrown a leg over a bike or ridden in heavy traffic...

I can see a day coming when, if we are not careful and do not protest loudly enough (or at all) we are, as a lot, outlawed from the public highways. Wait till the first headlines come in from sentencing 'dangerous and reckless cyclists', it'll be full throttle on the legislature from there on in. It will feed the car vs bike lobby like nothing else. I repeat the statistics: cycling deaths 2023: 4 Deaths caused by Car: 1750. At least 3/4 of those cycling deaths are 'misadventure' or just bad luck.

I imagine compulsory registration of both rider and bicycles, and a rudimentary MOT will come swiftly on, followed by full insurance. Send enough people to jail and insurance will start to get A. Complex and B. Expensive. To my mind we're sleepwalking into a legislative thunderstorm, the end of which no one can predict. I doubt a Labour government will ease up on punishing 'bad cyclists' either if it's a vote winner.

Unnecessary law making is always bad for democracy. The two cases it's based on are at best 'dubious' and at worst 'it could happen to anyone'. I have definitely noticed an uptick in aggression from drivers since the law change was announced. And now it's definitely on our doorstep, with a future of more and more punitive laws likely pencilled in. Do we revolt, or do we let them meekly in? And yes, I think any journalist guilty of touting the '52mph' nonsense or similar should be taken to task, should be pursued in the courts, not just by individuals but by interested cycling bodies like the CTC and British Cycling. The silence, I can hear, from the institutional bodies tasked with defending cycling and our right to use the public highways without fear, lack of confidence or huge insurance cover, is deafening.

[Jdsk]

...
Needless to say I'm very concerned that this legislation (now passed into law) is only the first in an array of laws that will be foisted upon us as soon as convictions go 'live'. It's went through (imo) without a whimper, or even any riposte from pro cycling politicians or celebrities.
...

My emboldening.

Which legislation is this, please?

Jonathan

[JerseyJoe]

'Killer Cyclists up to 14 years in jail', endorsed by ministers for inclusion in the next Criminal Justice and Safety Bill, it's been widely reported.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/m ... s-29181070

AFAIK the 14 years sentence for 'reckless cycling ' can be applied from the date of inclusion in this bill. 'Five new cycling laws from today May 16th', as reported in the Birmingham News. MPs and ministers have voted for 5 new amendments.

The new laws are as follows;

1. Causing death by dangerous cycling ( punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment)

2. Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling. Same tariff 14 years

3. Causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling. Tariff same.

4. Law requires cyclists to make sure their vehicle is equipped and regularly maintained in a legal way, including keeping brakes in good working order.

5. The above laws will also apply to incidents involving pedal cycles, e bikes, e scooters and e unicycles.

It's unclear when exactly these laws are to be tested, some sources are saying from the 16th of May, others today 1st June when a raft of new driving laws are to be introduced, others say not till after the GE. The Bill to prosecute 'killer cyclists' the same way as offending motorists has wide cross party support (the amendments passed easily) and it's extremely unlikely that will change.

Also worth emphasising:

'The proposed law would also require cyclists to make sure their vehicle “is equipped and maintained” in a legal way, which includes keeping brakes in working order. It would apply to incidents involving pedal cycles, e-bikes, e-scooters and e-unicycles.'

I would assume (without any hyperbole) that anyone found guilty of the new crimes outlined above would have their sentencing (duration) directly affected by the condition and maintenance of ones bicycle or electrically assisted vehicle. Failure to do so 'in a legal way' ie documented by a professional, I would imagine would impact on sentencing in a significant manner.

Cycling MOT just around the corner? Looks likely.

[cycle tramp]

...
Needless to say I'm very concerned that this legislation (now passed into law) is only the first in an array of laws that will be foisted upon us as soon as convictions go 'live'. It's went through (imo) without a whimper, or even any riposte from pro cycling politicians or celebrities.
...

My emboldening.

Which legislation is this, please?

Jonathan

..whilst the news of this law was documented on the.15th May 2024, I believe that both Parliament and the House of Lords was dissolved on the 30th May 2024 - and unless I've missed something, I would very much doubt that the bill went from Parliament to the house of Lords, and then ratified within 15 calendar days..
However that's not to say we should be compliance should the bill sit before Parliament in the future.

[drossall]

'Killer Cyclists up to 14 years in jail', endorsed by ministers for inclusion in the next Criminal Justice and Safety Bill, it's been widely reported.

The bill was lost as a result of the dissolution of Parliament.

I did wonder whether the cycling legislation was added when some ministers already knew that Parliament would not get the opportunity to pass it. The early parts of this thread have already discussed the fact that it's perfectly appropriate to prosecute cyclists for irresponsible behaviour. However, additional legislation appears to be popular with some sections, without necessarily being particularly practicable or useful in addition to the measures already in place, so is best proposed when you know it's not going to have time to get through but you can have the electoral kudos anyway. Then it can safely be forgotten again till the next election is near.

[cycle tramp]

There were several issues with the bill as it stood,

1) older persons are less likely to see or hear an approach of a bicycle but equally tend to suffer greater injuries and a greater chance of death following an sort of fall

2) There are several practices mentioned in the highway code, like wearing high vis, helmets and having a bell or audible warning device, which are not law, but are recommended. Would a bike rider be considered 'considerate' by a jury, if they stuck to the letter of the law, but didn't follow the other advice in the highway code?

3) a complete failure within the law to note any procedures or policies as to how to measure the roadworthiness of any cycle after a collision, when it is suspected that this law has been broken.

Yesterday a bike ride was cycling briskly (around 10 - 12mph) through a busy pedestrian only area in my local town. At one point they had to brake and steer sharply to avoid a small child who suddenly changed direction and ran out across their path - I am not against a 'dangerous or inconsiderate' cycling bill, but I would like one which acknowledges the above points.