Dangerous cyclists could get 14Years pokey.

Derivative

Flyboy152 wrote: »

You don't think that cycling on the pavement is a serious issue, or that if a pedestrian dies, if they are hit by a cyclist, the cyclist should be punished for it?

Cycling on a pavement is not a serious issue.
Cycling at inappropriate speed on a pavement is a serious issue.

If a pedestrian dies due to a cyclist, the cyclist should be punished within the framework of the laws we already have re: manslaughter. There is no need for new legislation.

Flyboy152

JQ. wrote: »

2 deaths per year caused by cyclists.

It would be interesting to see some statistics for UK deaths and their causes. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more deaths caused by falling pianos or dessert spoon incidents.

Cycling on the pavements should be prosecuted, I don't see what difference this law will make.

What penalty should they receive? Don't you think two deaths a year, is two deaths too many?

asbokid

EdgEy wrote: »

The costs of administration for that would in all probability be more than the payouts.

I doubt it. I would expect premiums for cycling insurance to be similar to those paid by moped riders. £50 to £100 a year sounds about right.

A child on a microscooter can just as easily scratch up a parked car.

True, but then that is a toy rather than a road vehicle.

You've also got the issue of children somehow having insurance. Putting a risk premium on say an 11-year-old? I'm not sure it's possible.

For what it's worth, I don't think that children should be allowed to cycle on the public road. The roads are far too busy nowadays and child cyclists are a danger to themselves, being too young and foolhardy to fully appreciate the risks.

We need to be getting more people on bicycles and away from heavy gas guzzling cars and motorbikes, not less.

Better provision of public transport first.

Your example on the family having a decent payout is just as silly. If she were to have been killed with a baseball bat or a knife, there would be no such payout.

There is limited criminal injury compensation paid out to families in cases of deliberate killings.

The fact it was done with a vehicle makes no difference if there is clear intent.

The cyclist who killed this youngster is an exception. He should have been properly punished using criminal law.

However, his civil liability for the death is a separate issue, though.

Had the cyclist been insured, the victim's family would have received compensation by now, whatever the outcome of any criminal case against the cyclist.

The family has the option of suing the cyclist in the civil courts, but since he is probably penniless, there would be little point.

That's the key purpose of 3rd party insurance for road users.

Flyboy152

EdgEy wrote: »

Cycling on a pavement is not a serious issue.
Cycling at inappropriate speed on a pavement is a serious issue.

Try telling that to Flyboy10, who was run down by a maniac cyclist on the pavement two years ago. The A&E doctor who treated his lacerated leg, said he was lucky to have not had it amputated; it took six months to heal. The adult cyclist was doing what he considered an appropriate speed and had the sheer arrogance to suggest that it was an eight year old child's fault for walking on the pavement. I'd call that a serious issue.

The magistrate who presided over the case said she was overwhelmed with anger that she could only impose a small fine for riding in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner.

If a pedestrian dies due to a cyclist, the cyclist should be punished within the framework of the laws we already have re: manslaughter. There is no need for new legislation.

The maximum fine is a thousand pounds, hardly appropriate. If a charge of manslaughter is the correct legal "framework," why can't we prosecute the same for drivers?

thelawnet

EdgEy wrote: »

I still don't understand why a specific 'death by cycling' law is required.

It isn't.
If a cyclist deliberately hits a pedestrian, they can be charged with murder, etc.

For instance, a driver drove at a cyclist, he was convicted of murder:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7692525/Driver-who-deliberately-knocked-down-cyclist-jailed-for-murder.html

No specific motoring offence required.

This cyclist incidental to his cycling attacked a motorist:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-9498190-cyclist-jailed-for-road-rage-attacks.do

he was imprisoned, no need for any cycling offence


This cyclist claimed he jumped onto the pavement to avoid a car, where he hit a pensioner who later died:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8197430.stm

He was convicted under the 1861 Act and imprisoned.

More pertinently, the statistics for the last available year (2009) show:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/rrcgb2009.pdf

261 pedestrians injured by bicycles, 62 seriously, 0 deaths
851 pedestrians injured by motorbikes, 158 seriously, 5 deaths
18,089 pedestrians injured by cars, 3,609 seriously, 221 deaths
1,279 pedestrians injured by buses, 263 seriously, 35 deaths
1,077 pedestrians injured by vans, 213 seriously, 13 deaths
293 pedestrians injured by HGVS, 78 seriously, 41 deaths
285 pedestrians injured by other vehicles, 66 seriously, 5 deaths

Of the 257 incidents involving bicycles, in 71 (28%) the cyclist was injured.
Of the 834 incidents involving motorbikes, in in 256 (31%) the biker was injured
Of the 17,542 incidents involving cars, only 269 (1.5%) injuries to occupants were recorded (similar figures for other motor vehicles)

The statistics show what is blindingly obvious - the 3-tonne vehicles hurtling towards me at 40mph+ when I try to cross the street with my children are far more dangerous than bicycles. And equally they also show that whereas motorists tend to get off scot free in terms of injuries - a motorists can (and frequently do) run over a pedestrian or a cyclist and just keep on going, whereas cyclists (and motorbikers) are far more likely to be injured themselves.

There is lots the government could do to reduce the death toll by cars (thousands annually) - black box recorders, for example - and yet they are wasting time debating laws to deal with pedestrians killed by cyclists (zero last year)

Derivative

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Try telling that to Flyboy10, who was run down by a maniac cyclist on the pavement two years ago.

My point stands, the problem is cyclists behaving irresponsibly. It is akin to saying cars are dangerous on roads - it is dangerous to drive at, say, 70mph in a 30, just as it is dangerous to ride on a footpath at 15mph.

I would hate to see cyclists, especially children, being punished for riding at an appropriate speed. The danger of a collision under 5mph is essentially the same as walking into another person.

The maximum fine is a thousand pounds, hardly appropriate. If a charge of manslaughter is the correct legal "framework," why can't we prosecute the same for drivers?

I have no bloody clue and I fail to understand how drunk drivers involved in deaths can get off with anything less than 10 years. This is my point - there should be no need for specific "death by dangerous ..." laws which only produce loopholes. Would you include recumbent bicycles in this law? Skateboards, which can go above 15-20mph with skilled riders? That's the problem.

Manslaughter covers it well enough, if not, the law there should be revised.

Flyboy152

thelawnet wrote: »

It isn't.
If a cyclist deliberately hits a pedestrian, they can be charged with murder, etc.

For instance, a driver drove at a cyclist, he was convicted of murder:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7692525/Driver-who-deliberately-knocked-down-cyclist-jailed-for-murder.html

No specific motoring offence required.

This cyclist incidental to his cycling attacked a motorist:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-9498190-cyclist-jailed-for-road-rage-attacks.do

he was imprisoned, no need for any cycling offence


This cyclist claimed he jumped onto the pavement to avoid a car, where he hit a pensioner who later died:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8197430.stm

He was convicted under the 1861 Act and imprisoned.

More pertinently, the statistics for the last available year (2009) show:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/rrcgb2009.pdf

261 pedestrians injured by bicycles, 62 seriously, 0 deaths
851 pedestrians injured by motorbikes, 158 seriously, 5 deaths
18,089 pedestrians injured by cars, 3,609 seriously, 221 deaths
1,279 pedestrians injured by buses, 263 seriously, 35 deaths
1,077 pedestrians injured by vans, 213 seriously, 13 deaths
293 pedestrians injured by HGVS, 78 seriously, 41 deaths
285 pedestrians injured by other vehicles, 66 seriously, 5 deaths

Of the 257 incidents involving bicycles, in 71 (28%) the cyclist was injured.
Of the 834 incidents involving motorbikes, in in 256 (31%) the biker was injured
Of the 17,542 incidents involving cars, only 269 (1.5%) injuries to occupants were recorded (similar figures for other motor vehicles)

The statistics show what is blindingly obvious - the 3-tonne vehicles hurtling towards me at 40mph+ when I try to cross the street with my children are far more dangerous than bicycles. And equally they also show that whereas motorists tend to get off scot free in terms of injuries - a motorists can (and frequently do) run over a pedestrian or a cyclist and just keep on going, whereas cyclists (and motorbikers) are far more likely to be injured themselves.

There is lots the government could do to reduce the death toll by cars (thousands annually) - black box recorders, for example - and yet they are wasting time debating laws to deal with pedestrians killed by cyclists (zero last year)

So, I ask again, why are drivers not charged with manslaughter if they kill someone?

Strider590

asbokid wrote: »

More likely, the poor girl was trying her best to avoid the aggressive cyclist.

Im sorry, that's just non-sense.....

A group of drunken youth's are a VERY real threat to a cyclist, they often do their best to scare you or knock you off.
Girls showing off are particularly bad because they think you'll stop for a girl.

I've been punched in the side of the head by such a group as I cycled past on the road. One stepped out in front of me and took a swing at my head, hitting and denting my helmet.
I've also been chased by a group of youth's after one shouted "I want that bike" as I rode past (again on the road).

Drunk or not, groups of kids are something a cyclist needs to avoid, even if it means taking a longer detour!

thelawnet

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Try telling that to Flyboy10, who was run down by a maniac cyclist on the pavement two years ago. The A&E doctor who treated his lacerated leg, said he was lucky to have not had it amputated; it took six months to heal. The adult cyclist was doing what he considered an appropriate speed and had the sheer arrogance to suggest that it was an eight year old child's fault for walking on the pavement. I'd call that a serious issue.

The magistrate who presided over the case said she was overwhelmed with anger that she could only impose a small fine for riding in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner.

The maximum fine is a thousand pounds, hardly appropriate. If a charge of manslaughter is the correct legal "framework," why can't we prosecute the same for drivers?

Careless cycling is a level 3 fine (1000 pounds max), dangerous cycling is level 4 (2500 pounds max), wanton and furious cycling is a 2 year maximum penalty.

If the cycylist was only charged with careless cycling, as you imply, and not dangerous or wanton and furious cycling, that seems like a problem with the prosecutors rather than the law.

Given that zero pedestrians were killed by cyclists last year, it's rather a sideshow. Clearly more pedestrians suffer injuries from bicycles than are kiled, as you mention. Although 1000 pounds doesn't sound like much, you need to put it into context with the sentencing we have for others offences. For instance, a careless driver ran over and killed a child outside a nursery - he was fined 1500 pounds http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/4116212._Paltry____1_500_for_driver_who_killed_tot/

The maximum penalty for careless driving that doesn't kill someone is 2500 pounds (no prison sentence) - comparable to the penalty for careless cycling of 1000 pounds. It's only right that the maximum sentence is lower, given that cyclists are less dangerous than cars, but equally if you want to argue that a cyclist who injures someone through careless cycling should receive a stiffer penalty then the far greater number of careless drivers should likewise receive harsher sentences. Fair enough, but I don't think it will happen, we have so many criminals in the UK we've trouble locking them up as it is without bringing in tougher sentences.

Flyboy152

thelawnet wrote: »

Careless cycling is a level 3 fine (1000 pounds max), dangerous cycling is level 4 (2500 pounds max), wanton and furious cycling is a 2 year maximum penalty.

If the cycylist was only charged with careless cycling, as you imply, and not dangerous or wanton and furious cycling, that seems like a problem with the prosecutors rather than the law.

Given that zero pedestrians were killed by cyclists last year, it's rather a sideshow. Clearly more pedestrians suffer injuries from bicycles than are kiled, as you mention. Although 1000 pounds doesn't sound like much, you need to put it into context with the sentencing we have for others offences. For instance, a careless driver ran over and killed a child outside a nursery - he was fined 1500 pounds http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/4116212._Paltry____1_500_for_driver_who_killed_tot/

The maximum penalty for careless driving that doesn't kill someone is 2500 pounds (no prison sentence) - comparable to the penalty for careless cycling of 1000 pounds. It's only right that the maximum sentence is lower, given that cyclists are less dangerous than cars, but equally if you want to argue that a cyclist who injures someone through careless cycling should receive a stiffer penalty then the far greater number of careless drivers should likewise receive harsher sentences. Fair enough, but I don't think it will happen, we have so many criminals in the UK we've trouble locking them up as it is without bringing in tougher sentences.

Why are drivers not charged with manslaughter if they kill someone?