Dangerous cyclists could get 14Years pokey.

Derivative

I'm not quite sure why we need these 'death by dangerous...' laws anyway. Surely manslaughter covers it quite neatly. It reminds me of 'on the internet' laws, such as copyright infringement carrying worse penalties than simply stealing a CD from a store.

Cycling on a pavement is no more dangerous than walking on a road.
What is dangerous is cycling at 10-20mph around pedestrians or blind corners.

Myself and I would wager the vast majority of cyclists, when on shared use paths, slow right down to 5mph or less when they encounter a dog, small children, or indeed anyone that could step in our path. It's just common sense.

The main reason for pavement cycling is either lack of education (mainly people who've never driven, and are scared a car will intentionally run them down), or a lack of adequate cycle provisions. Perhaps if the roads weren't covered in potholes and there was enough room for a cycle beside a car without sitting in a gutter, the problem wouldn't exist.

Gloomendoom

Strider590 wrote: »

Hmmmmm, I have had on two occasions been riding on the Cannock mountain bike trails and had a 50-65 year old gentleman stand in the middle of the track with his arms spread out in protest of me riding there........ Where would I stand with this law, if I had actually hit said idiot?

It would depend on whether or not you could reasonably be expected to stop in distance/time available.

Hitting pedestrians to teach them a lesson or just because you have just as much right to use the track as they have isn't reasonable.

ventureuk

Kotula v EDF Energy Networks

Cyclist rides then pushes bike on pavement in order to take reasonable care to himself due to roadworks but is injured by said roadworks.

Cyclist wins the case despite committing an offence and I submit that on this basis any criminal case could be defended were one to appear in the Mags.

Why ?

Because the prosecuting body would fail to document or record prevailing road, roadwork or traffic conditions and in my experience the CPS would offer no evidence.

thelawnet

asbokid wrote: »

Quite. The cyclist deliberately knocked down the young woman.

No it doesn't say that at all.

The cyclist was cycling down the road at 20mph, which is not fast for a road - we have no lower speed limit, and motor vehicles routinely ignore the 20mph limit.

He was pictured on the road by CCTV:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7496370.stm

"Howard was cycling on the road when he approached the group but the court heard conflicting evidence about whether he mounted the kerb at any point during the incident. "

So either he:"mounted the pavement" in an effort to avoid the group of underage drinkers, or he didn't. The prosecution were attempting to argue that mounting the pavement was a bad thing, however I'm not sure - if pedestrians are in the road and you avoid them by going on the pavement, no harm done, much better than saying 'I'd better stay on the road', and ploughing into them.

The defence lawyer said that the deceased "at the last minute, stepped back in front of him", perhaps they were playing chicken with him?

Cyclists are quite vulnerable to groups of drunken young people - you can get people trying to knock people off their bikes, with a similar outcome to this (fatal brain injuries).

In similar circumstances to this local to me, a group recently blocked the path for a cyclist and then beat and robbed him http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2085649_cyclist_robbed_by_gang_alongside_canal

People make split-second decisions that have the potential to go wrong all the time, in this occasion sadly it did.

I don't understand why the cyclist was only prosecuted for a road traffic offence when the option of a manslaughter charge was available.

A friend of mine was deliberately knocked down by a car driven by her estranged husband. The police didn't waste time prosecuting him for motoring offences, they charged him with attempted murder and he was convicted and sentenced to 7 years jail.

None of the news articles are very clear but was the cyclist annoyed in some way? Not that it excuses his action, but were the pedestrians walking in the road?

The inquest returned a verdict of accidental death, plainly he did not intend to hit the girl. His only error was excess speed, but that in itself is unlikely to make you guilty of manslaughter - cyclists and motorists go past pedestrians with excessive speed all the time

Regardless of the disputed facts of this particular case, the fact remains that the offence with which Jason Howard was charged had a maximum penalty of £2,500, and he was fined £2,200. He could have been changed with wanton and furious cycling and thereafter sentenced to up to two years in prison, or with manslaughter with an unlimited sentence (although in general the conviction prospects for a road manslaughter case or very poor).

Approximately 300 people per year are found guilty of causing death by reckless/careless driving offences, with more found not guilty.

The Offences aganst the Person Act 1861 s.35 offence reads as follows:

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years"

and there are typically one or two prosecutions per year against cyclists for breaching it. It is not really clear to me how this warrants a new law. You might as well legislate specifically against dangerous joggers.

thelawnet

btw, not everything in the newspapers is necessarily true. Someone claiming to be the defence solicitor said:

"almost all of the press coverage came about as a result of the Prosecutor's opening. The evidence came out very differently in Court.
None of the witnesses could agree what the cyclist shouted or indeed if he shouted at all.
None of them gave evidence that he shouted "move - I'm not stopping" which seems to be the phrase that the media have used to demonise the cyclist.
Having been in Court throughout the trial I do wonder where some of the reporters got their information.
Some of them even had us in the Crown Court!
I'm back to defending murderers and rapists now where I get a much quieter life!"

(comments here http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com/2008/07/grief-exploited.html )

anotherbaldrick

Total Tosh.
Looking at the photo their are minimal pavements so obviously the carriageway has to be shared with pedestrians. To approach a group at speed and just call out on the knowledge that if they are not fast or nimble enough to jump out of the way you will hit them is just what we have against the mentality of some cyclists.

alanrowell

Why can't they use the existing manslaughter law rather than creating another category of "Causing death by being a knob".

thelawnet

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

Total Tosh.
Looking at the photo their are minimal pavements so obviously the carriageway has to be shared with pedestrians. To approach a group at speed and just call out on the knowledge that if they are not fast or nimble enough to jump out of the way you will hit them is just what we have against the mentality of some cyclists.

The nearside pavement looks fairly ordinary, the offside I think looks narrower because of the angle from which the camera was taken. In any case if the teenagers were simply walking in the road it should have been simple for him to avoid them - the suggestion that you would deliberately crash into somebody, risking serious injury to yourself, because they were in your way is ludicrous.

As for what actually happened in the case, whether he 'just called out', or whether they tried to get in his way, or any other scenario you care to dream up, is pure speculation, because the media does not work by providing balanced unsensational reporting, but simply whatever makes the best story.

The sentence in this case was much stiffer than that handed out to a lorry driver who failed to give way to a cyclist, crushing him to death http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1033754/Lorry-driver-killed-cyclist-walks-free-court-ludicrous-275-fine.html

ventureuk

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

Total Tosh.
Looking at the photo their are minimal pavements so obviously the carriageway has to be shared with pedestrians. To approach a group at speed and just call out on the knowledge that if they are not fast or nimble enough to jump out of the way you will hit them is just what we have against the mentality of some cyclists.

Are you the man on the Clapham Omnibus ? or did you miss that one...

thelawnet

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

Total Tosh.
Looking at the photo their are minimal pavements so obviously the carriageway has to be shared with pedestrians. To approach a group at speed and just call out on the knowledge that if they are not fast or nimble enough to jump out of the way you will hit them is just what we have against the mentality of some cyclists.

The nearside pavement looks fairly ordinary, the offside I think looks narrower because of the angle from which the camera was taken. In any case if the teenagers were simply walking in the road it should have been simple for him to avoid them - the suggestion that you would deliberately crash into somebody, risking serious injury to yourself, because they were in your way is ludicrous.

As for what actually happened in the case, whether he 'just called out', or whether they tried to get in his way, or any other scenario you care to dream up, is pure speculation, because the media does not work by providing balanced unsensational reporting, but simply whatever makes the best story.

The sentence in this case was much stiffer than that handed out to a lorry driver who failed to give way to a cyclist, crushing him to death http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1033754/Lorry-driver-killed-cyclist-walks-free-court-ludicrous-275-fine.html

You could perfectly well look at the deceased's bebo page, and observe that:

http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=5304767782

DrinksStella all the way!!!!!!!LovedDrinkin, smokin and doin drugs!!!! and any1 else who did them!!!!!
in combination with the news reports of the group having consumed alcohol and note that alcohol consumption is strongly associated with pedestrian fatalities.

In particular '[he] recalled Rhiannon only having consumed two cans of Stella Artois lager and told the court that she was not drunk and "absolutely fine".', 4.5 units of alcohol (minimum) is actually rather a lot for a 17 year old girl.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2263354/Cyclist-knocked-down-and-killed-teenage-girl-court-hears.html