Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

[Stradageek]

It's just an easy vote winner that does nothing for road safety because really tackling road safety is hard and unpopular

[pwa]

Does anyone know how many pedestrians are killed every year by cyclists.

I imagine it must be plenty for that nice Mr Shapps and the oh so reasonable Daily Mail to show concern.

Matthew Briggs himself said the number was very low. But is that a good reason not to have the right law to hand on those rare occasions when it is needed? Mr Briggs described the pain of losing a loved one, then having the police explain that the person responsible can only be charged with an offence that carries a low maximum sentence. I think Mr Briggs was right to be upset about that.

I wasn't questioning the need for the law, just whether it warranted a full front page, plus all the other stuff.

Oh, there's a national crisis looming, PM and Chancellor on their hols, Govt is rudderless so let's talk about a very very few cyclists.

I see your point.

[thirdcrank]

I'm sure I've posted before on a thread about this broad subject, that a good first step would be to rename the various forms of manslaughter as "unlawful killing." "Manslaughter" is such a blood-curdling expression that I'm not surprised that juries sometimes have problems with it. OTOH, inquest juries seem to have little problem with a verdict of unlawful killing.

[Revolution]

It is clear (and unsurprising) that everyone would want proper sentencing for a cyclist who kills a pedestrian through their negligence or recklessness but as we all know - the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists is a fraction of those killed by motor vehicles. The stats I have (can't remember where I got them) are that between 2005 - 2015 there was a total of 5525 pedestrian fatalities of which 31 where the sole vehicle was a bicycle => 0.561%
My anger is at another member of this government playing to a populist agenda that is fuelled by the bile and hysteria of The Mail. We look at Russia and see how skewed their take on reality is because they are fed a line by their government and the state controlled press - it seems to me we are not so different over here

His name is Shapps.

Thanks for the correction

[cycle tramp]

I'm sure I've posted before on a thread about this broad subject, that a good first step would be to rename the various forms of manslaughter as "unlawful killing." "Manslaughter" is such a blood-curdling expression that I'm not surprised that juries sometimes have problems with it. OTOH, inquest juries seem to have little problem with a verdict of unlawful killing.

I'm with thirdcrank on this one. Rather than have a raft of differing laws to cover the same outcome (an unintentional death) we need clear and concise law covering all situations, whether the tragic situation arises in a building site, on the road, in a person's home or anywhere else.
Further to this I would like to see the outcomes be more that punitive, with any outcomes affectiving how training is given, road layouts or site safety.

[bluespeeder]

I'm not impressed with the BBC headline "killer cyclists" - sounds like they are going to the dark side too.

[Bonefishblues]

I'm not impressed with the BBC headline "killer cyclists" - sounds like they are going to the dark side too.

Go to BBC News. Type 'Killer Driver'.

I wish it weren't so and that different terms were used more generally, but the BBC is at least consistent in the term's usage.

[Tiberius]

I want drivers who kill to be given sentences that reflect the fact that a life has been lost.
I want cyclists who kill (far rarer) to be given sentences that reflect the fact that a life has been lost.
I want both.

Yup, simple enough isn't it?

[Albrecht]

This country is being run by populists who create policy that plays well with The Mail and avoids making any decisions that may be uncomfortable for that rag's readers to stomach.

I see it came up in The Guardian as well.

I have to say that I would completely agree with such a law. Why not?

There are three separate elements that require having their wings clipped right now, all male, of course. In descening order or problemativ behaviour;

• a) The lycra-ed stormtroopers who demand to treat every narrow cycle lane or tow path as if it was their personal domain and as a preparation for descending the Stelvio Pass. I promise you one day I am going to enjoy "nudging" one of them into the canal.

• b) The Uber Eat riders on electrical bikes traveling at 15, 20 mph while trying to read Maps their mobile phones, and all sorts of clearly illegal electrical MTBs in general, i.e. over powered, unrestricted, pedal free motorcycles

• c) Wannabe "Twelve O'Clock Boys" pulling impressively massive wheelies, in entirely inappropriate places.

I fear that their excesses are going to bring about the inevitable.

Which law are they going to try and tag it onto? That would be part of the problem.

I want drivers who kill to be given sentences that reflect the fact that a life has been lost.
I want cyclists who kill (far rarer) to be given sentences that reflect the fact that a life has been lost.
I want both.

I'm with PWA, and here's a shout out to Road Peace, founded in 1992 by Brigitte Chaudhry whose son was killed by a red light offender.

How and why on earth did killing someone with a car because more acceptable than using a gun, steel pipe or a knife?

[Albrecht]

Briggs has had six years to hone his campaign and has realised that his earlier demonisation of cyclists has won him more enemies than friends, hence his calm and unemotive manner now.

I remember that case. It has a touch of the Madeleine and Kate McCann, i.e. ran on for further than it should due to the involvement attractive, White blonde. Was she or was she not on her mobile phone?

What frustrated me just as much is that all ire was turned on the cyclist on the road where they should be, and nothing was picked up about pedestrians jaywalking onto the road. The cyclist had the right of way as the lights were green, and the woman could have avoided danger by using a pedestrian crossing less than ten metres away.

I remember general opinion was he was badly or not represented at all and even if he had had brakes, he would have been unlikely to have avoid her. In short, that it was her fault.

Mr Shapps needs to be remind that a "selfish minority" of pedestrian believe they are "immune" to road traffic and "something ought to be done about them too". That's to say pedestrians ought to face the same punishments if they injure or kill a cyclist.

If it was treated as a road collision, why would be blamed? I can get why a cyclist mowing down an old lady in a pedestrian zone would be completely on the cyclist, but not in her case.

"Bad cases make bad laws".

As an aside, what is the phenomenon that I have observed many times for pedestrians to walk BACK into danger rather than continue to walk away from it? I've had that more than once, say, on corners or junctions where had the pedestrian just kept walking, I could have easily cycled behind them and both of us avoided any contact or risk but, instead, they turned backwards or retreated to where I had already committed to riding.

I know there's a similar phenomenon whereby it was found that a certain proportion of people's instinct was to run towards a danger rather than away from it.

Seriously, schools should offer obligatory lessons in good pedestrianship, e.g. heads up, no phones, always walk on the left, keep going where you have right of way. it's that moment of panic they have while throwing the roulette wheel as to which way they are going to go.

[Bonefishblues]

Not a thread to reopen the case, but you may wish to revisit its details based on your analysis (and the phrase 'hard cases make bad law')

[Revolution]

I see it came up in The Guardian as well.

Shapps wrote the piece for The Mail - The Guardian and the BBC were reporting that. + I think I'm correct in saying that only The Mail has a headline 'Killer Cyclists'

[TrevA]

Does anyone know how many pedestrians are killed every year by cyclists.

I imagine it must be plenty for that nice Mr Shapps and the oh so reasonable Daily Mail to show concern.

It’s usually between 1 and 3 pedestrians per year.

[Albrecht]

Does anyone know how many pedestrians are killed every year by cyclists.

I found,

"in 2019, 5 pedestrian deaths involved a bicycle. Meanwhile, 48 cyclists and 305 pedestrians were killed by cars"

I couldn't find how many cyclists were knocked off or injured by pedestrians, but I've been one.

Not a thread to reopen the case, but you may wish to revisit its details based on your analysis (and the phrase 'hard cases make bad law')

I've never heard "hard cases" being used but I have heard "bad cases" many times, include at least one in the Lords Hansard and another from a barristers' chambers. (I won't reference the Wikipedia page as it's not a reliable source).

What am I suppose to to be looking to find?

The Griggs' case upset me because it's going to exploited by killjoys. Bottomline was, it was the woman's own fault for jaywalking, and disregarding the cyclist's right of way, but I don't hear the Daily Heil mob clamouring for on the spot fines for jaywalkers and turning England into Bavaria.

[cycle tramp]

To be fair to the article, cyclists who endanger others were described as a 'minority', and that certainly seems to sit with my anecdotes where tge majority of cyclists are aware of others and act according whereas a few seem unable to assess the risks that their acts bring to other persons