Dangerous cyclists could get 14Years pokey.

anotherbaldrick

Under a new law being talked through in Parliament cyclists who cause death or injury to pedestrians through dangerous riding could get up to 14 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13034162

victor2

Shame a bit of common sense and reasonable education doesn't prevent such things. Suppose there will always be idiots like the one quoted in the article though.
Does seem a little pointless, given everything else that's wrong with modern society IMO.

alanrowell

Totally meaningless - look at the number of cases where a car driver gets even charged with causing death by dangerous driving

anotherbaldrick

Perhaps this will mean that cyclists are going to have to take out third party insurance to cover injury claims from people they hit. That would bring the pains on !

paddedjohn

Its about time they had some sort of insurance, either 3rd party or full comp. Reg plates wouldnt go amiss either so they could be identified.

no_more_cards_for_me

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

Perhaps this will mean that cyclists are going to have to take out third party insurance to cover injury claims from people they hit. That would bring the pains on !

Why ? I have third party insurance anywayso whywould it be a pain ? Cycle users have just as much right to use the road as any other user. The article refers to a cyclist who was clearly reckless and cycled without due care to other road users. However it is unfair to treat all cyclists with the same attitude. Unfortunately other road users disregard cyclists, for example with a failure to leave sufficient room when overtaking. Perhaps if drivers were threatened with greater sentances for inconsiderate driving and had more respect for other road users then everybody might be a little safer.

victor2

At what age does a cyclist have to have their bicycle registered - and presumably hold a license to ride, so that they can be tracked by ANPR systems.
Hit 'em as soon as they can pedal eh?
I can just see Plod pulling over a 5 year old and trying to established if they are the registered keeper of the aformentioned bicycle.

anotherbaldrick

no_more_cards_for_me wrote: »

Why ? I have third party insurance anywayso whywould it be a pain ? Cycle users have just as much right to use the road as any other user. The article refers to a cyclist who was clearly reckless and cycled without due care to other road users. However it is unfair to treat all cyclists with the same attitude. Unfortunately other road users disregard cyclists, for example with a failure to leave sufficient room when overtaking. Perhaps if drivers were threatened with greater sentances for inconsiderate driving and had more respect for other road users then everybody might be a little safer.

Their are more than a few whose loutish behavior give pedestrians a dread of cyclists

no_more_cards_for_me

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

Their are more than a few whose loutish behavior give pedestrians a dread of cyclists

Maybe but not ALL cyclists. There are bad drivers and bad pedestrians. If Pedestrians took more care before they stepped out into the road then that would be helpful, standing in the middle of the road is a bad idea with traffic all around. The green cross code should be re-taught as some seem to of forgotten the basic rules, stop look and listen. Cyclists have a responsibility to ride safely, pedestrians have a responsbility to not cross dangerously. Any wonder some countries outlawed jay walking.

anotherbaldrick

no_more_cards_for_me wrote: »

Maybe but not ALL cyclists. There are bad drivers and bad pedestrians. If Pedestrians took more care before they stepped out into the road then that would be helpful, standing in the middle of the road is a bad idea with traffic all around. The green cross code should be re-taught as some seem to of forgotten the basic rules, stop look and listen. Cyclists have a responsibility to ride safely, pedestrians have a responsbility to not cross dangerously. Any wonder some countries outlawed jay walking.

The trouble with cyclists, or at least the ones in question are those who approach from behind and fly past close at speed and in pedestrian precincts and pavements . They never consider that the pedestrian is in a free range area and at liberty to turn , move to avoid someone else or just decide to go the other way . They know full well that if they hit someone it is chances on the pedestrian is the one who will suffer.

no_more_cards_for_me

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

The trouble with cyclists, or at least the ones in question are those who approach from behind and fly past close at speed and in pedestrian precincts and pavements . They never consider that the pedestrian is in a free range area and at liberty to turn , move to avoid someone else or just decide to go the other way . They know full well that if they hit someone it is chances on the pedestrian is the one who will suffer.

If a cyclist is in a pedestrian precinct then they have no excuse, I agree. Pavements, well no body should be cycling using a pavement if they are not children. However just because a cyclist is silent doesn't mean the pedestrain can just step out into the road, they still have a responsibility to check. Electric cars are silent as well

Fly past close at speed - depends whether the cyclist is keeping up with the traffic flow, which should make them a little safer then cycling too slowly. If the pedestrian takes the time to check the traffic prior to stepping out then there is little problem. If they just step out then they are failing to take note of the conditions, exactly the same as stepping out in front of a car. Both drivers and pedestrians are sometimes quilty of underestimating exactly how fast a cyclist can travel.