Dangerous cyclists could get 14Years pokey.

thelawnet

Flyboy152 wrote: »

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

It is considered relatively difficult to obtain a conviction for manslaughter, so they introduced offences of causing death by dangerous/drunken/careless driving to make it easier to punish motorists for the consequences of their actions.

Basically what it comes down to is risk and responsibility - if you pilot a jumbo jet, you have a responsibility for hundreds of people, and hence the law is very strict in terms of blood alcohol level and so on. Likewise, if you drive a car, you can easily cause death and destruction, and therefore the laws was toughened up to make people responsibile for that. It is poor analogy to argue that because certain laws apply to cars, we must therefore have the same laws for bicycles, when the risk posed by a 10kg 20mph bicycle is not anything like that posed by a 3 tonne, 150mph car - clearly a different standard of behaviour applies to a bicycle as to a motor car and again a motor car compared to a British Airways 747.

Obviously there are many things that can cause death, for instance there are 225,000 dog bite victims who attend A&E or MIUs each year, and many fatalities. Most owners are never held accountable for 'death by careless dog owning'.

There are hundreds charged with various death by xxx motoring offences each year, it is clearly expedient from a legal perspective to have specific offences for this. OTOH, they are talking about passing this law in order to have a specific offence for perhaps half-a-dozen cases in a decade. It is not a good use of Parliament's time.

flyingscotno1

Always thing that this kind of thing there but the grace of god...

We've all had mistakes or bits of driving we look back on and think- ahh that wasn't great or advisable. Same with cycling I guess.

I know that people have done perfectly legal things but have had it described by others as bad driving etc. It can happen to anyone through a momentary lapse in concentration.

We need these penalties for idiots but it could be the everyday guy one day or another.

Flyboy152

thelawnet wrote: »

It is considered relatively difficult to obtain a conviction for manslaughter, so they introduced offences of causing death by dangerous/drunken/careless driving to make it easier to punish motorists for the consequences of their actions.

This then answers the question as to why it is necessary for this new law to exist.

Basically what it comes down to is risk and responsibility - if you pilot a jumbo jet, you have a responsibility for hundreds of people, and hence the law is very strict in terms of blood alcohol level and so on. Likewise, if you drive a car, you can easily cause death and destruction, and therefore the laws was toughened up to make people responsibile for that.

Obviously there are many things that can cause death, for instance there are 225,000 dog bite victims who attend A&E or MIUs each year, and many fatalities. Most owners are never held accountable for 'death by careless dog owning'.

There are hundreds charged with various death by xxx motoring offences each year, it is clearly expedient from a legal perspective to have specific offences for this. OTOH, they are talking about passing this law in order to have a specific offence for perhaps half-a-dozen cases in a decade. It is not a good use of Parliament's time.

Well, I'm sorry that you find the the problem of people getting killed a waste of time of the legislature.

Derivative

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Well, I'm sorry that you find the the problem of people getting killed a waste of time of the legislature.

2 people per year out of a population of sixty million is indeed a waste of time.

You could get a better net benefit by putting a hundred grand into the NHS per year.

thelawnet

Flyboy152 wrote: »

This then answers the question as to why it is necessary for this new law to exist.

There's no point in quoting what I wrote and then ignoring it.

Like I said, it comes down to risk and responsibility.

My 3-year-old on her scooter does not pose much risk to anyone. Accordingly, although there is small chance she could run into an OAP and knock her over, the risk is small enough that it is cheap and easy to obtain a scooter, and there are no special laws governing them.

On the other hand, if a 17-year-old wants to drive a Range Rover 4.6 HSE, he will need to pass several tests and pay tens of thousands of pounds for insurance. That is because the risk of him causing death, injury or damage to others is high. Equally, should he kill someone while driving such an absurd vehicle, whether through simple carelessness or through actual dangerous driving, it is appropriate that he should be punished for that - a motor vehicle is not to be taken lightly.

The fact is, while bicycles, as with everything else in life, have a non-zero risk of causing death, the anaology between:

cars - hundreds of pedestrians killed last year
bicycles - zero pedestrians killed last year

is not a valid one for arguing for similar laws to apply for both, especially when a cyclist was in 2009 imprisoned under EXISTING legislation for bad cycling.

I'm sure you could find literally dozens of classes of manslaughter, along the lines of 'death by cyclist', that have more cases annually than 'manslaughter by cyclist' (by contrast, motor manslaughter is clearly one of the leading ones and justifies special legislation), why single out bicycles?

Well, I'm sorry that you find the the problem of people getting killed a waste of time of the legislature.

More people were killed by bulls last year than by cyclists

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-11751079
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/8707011.Farmer_killed_by_bull_on_Hampshire_farm/), surely this means we need new laws? Because obviously if people are being killed new laws will prevent that. Won't it?

Flyboy152

EdgEy wrote: »

2 people per year out of a population of sixty million is indeed a waste of time.

You could get a better net benefit by putting a hundred grand into the NHS per year.

So, there we have it. The typical arrogance of the louts in Lycra; two deaths a year is nothing more than a waste of time.

asbokid

thelawnet wrote: »

It is generally speaking safe to ride your bicycle down the street at 20mph. If someone jumps out in front of you however, the results are unlikely to be pretty (for the cyclist).

It's not appropriate to say that it is "generally" safe to ride at 20mph. Every road condition is completely different at any given time.

As a car driver (and occasional motorcyclist), I adapt my speed according to the anticipated risks. When there are pedestrians in the road, some of whom show signs of intoxication, I slow to a crawling speed. If that slower speed means that my car is at greater risk of being vandalised as I pass the drunken pedestrians then that is unfortunate for me, but it is a risk that the motorist is obliged to take.

Equally, you can drive down a NSL road at 60mph and someone can jump out of a hedge in front of your car, likewise there is not much you can do.

Do you drive a car? The likelihood of that scenario is almost nil, and in those circumstances no court would attribute any blame to the motorist.

However, a vehicle driver, encountering a group of youths in a built-up area and who were possibly drunk, should drop his road speed to 2mph.

Here is a Google street view of the road in Buckingham where the cyclist killed the young pedestrian.

Since the cyclist lives in Buckingham himself, he would be aware that the road holds the town's public library (on the left), a doctors surgery (on the right) and a charity for the blind. There is also a car park at the far end.

As such, it is a road that is evidently well used by pedestrians who feel comfortable walking in the carriageway itself, as we can see.

Note the dark-clothed man in the foreground walking in the road. Further down the street are four young women, one of whom is also walking in the road. An elderly man with a walking stick is outside the surgery, struggling to climb in to a silver car. On the opposite pavement are a young couple with a child in a pushchair.

With those conditions, it is not a suitable road for any vehicle to travel along at 20mph.

20mph is a low speed, which motoring groups campaign against, saying that 30mph is just fine.

This is a pointless argument. 50mph on the motorway is normally a "low speed", but it's still too fast if the conditions dictate otherwise. A pedestrian in the carriageway is an obvious example.

We do not even know that he was going that speed, that's just what the media have reported

According to a Thames Valley Police spokesman, the cyclist, Jason Howard, was estimated to have been travelling at between 17mph and 23 mph. That was simply too fast for that road at that time.

The CPS could have chosen to charge a more serious offence but they obviously felt it was inappropriate

That doesn't tell us much, other than the prosecution went for a lesser charge since it was more likely to result in a conviction. Nothing unusual there then.

He did not have a 'defence team', the case was heard in the Magistrates Court, he was defended by a single solicitor.

I'm sure that he relied on legal representation when he was interviewed by the police. He was also advised by his solicitor not to speak to the media while the civil case was/is outstanding, and on the day, he was represented in the magistrates court.

As a matter of interest, was the cyclist represented by a lawyer who specialises in cycling matters? I daresay there must be a cadre of such lawyers, vying for business in the classified ads at the back of magazines for fanatical cyclists.

It would be instructive to know whether this man is a cycling fanatic himself. His arrogant behaviour on the road certainly suggests that he is.

Ah, a barroom lawyer, how wonderful. Please pass me the case files when you're done with them.

I don't claim to have any more knowledge about this case than what has been reported in the media. If you are party to extra information that the rest of us haven't seen, then do please share it with us!

From a BBC article from July 2008...

"During Howard's trial, Aylesbury magistrates heard that he (the cyclist Jason Howard) had shouted at Rhiannon (Bennett) to "move because I'm not stopping!" before crashing into her.

Rhiannon died six days after hitting her head on the pavement as a result of the collision in Verney Close, Buckingham.

Following the verdict, Mr Bennett (child's father) said: "It's laughable - when we first heard about this we thought it would be manslaughter, or perhaps even murder, but this is Britain.

"He is an arrogant, vile little man."

Mrs Bennett (mother) told BBC Five Live that the law had let them down.

She said: "He shouted a warning. There's no need to shout a warning. He's on his bicycle, he should have veered round them but even on impact with Rhiannon, he didn't even brake.

"He was on the footpath, where she should have been safe."

They have such a scheme in Switzerland, the cost is 6 swiss francs (4 quid), because the reality is despite all your bluster, cyclists are low risk - compare that with the cost of car insurance, and consider that that 6 francs is a commercial rate that covers administration, marketing and producing the little disc annually for the insured bicycle.

Good. That would be a start here, even if the premium is far too low. £50 a year sounds more reasonable. The IPT on compulsory cycling insurance might begin to recoup the public expenditure on cycling schemes.

Derivative

Flyboy152 wrote: »

So, there we have it. The typical arrogance of the louts in Lycra; two deaths a year is nothing more than a waste of time.

There are hundreds of deaths due to knife crime each year.
Should we legislate "Death by dangerous stabbing"?

The point is not that people dying is irrelevant. The point is that there are more important issues to be debated in the Commons. These things can be dealt with on a case to case basis by the courts, under the framework of legislation we already have. There is no need to further complicate things.

As an earlier poster has stated, your experience merely points to a frankly, crap prosecution.

You are not going to stop people cycling on pavements at reckless speeds by legislation. These people are morons, with no concern for their own safety and wellbeing, never mind that of the public.

Derivative

To asbokid:

On the comparison between mopeds and bicycle collisions.

Here is a video of a crash test, a head on collision at 12mph (typical bicycle speed if not flying downhill).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVZ0qiA-jBY

The car comes out virtually undamaged, essentially the same as if a pedestrian had hit the car. It is not unreasonable to suggest at higher speeds you would expect the same. The windscreen doesn't even smash, though that may be due to our rider's inventive airbag helmet (interesting idea).

The only 'damage' I can concieve of a bicycle doing to a car at any speed under 40mph is cosmetic, with the exception perhaps of driving over the bicycle itself.

It is not in any way comparable to the damage a moped/125cc motorcycle can do. A cyclist is for all intents and purposes a fast moving pedestrian. The bicycle itself generally weighs 10-15kg, compared to a 60kg rider.

I can currently buy liability insurance and theft insurance for a £600 bike for just over £50 per year. The liability insurance is around £15, and most of that is probably admin.

On the basis of compensating motorists for damage caused by bicycles, I support the idea of cycle insurance. The problem is the other side of the coin.

It's simply providing barriers to people taking up cycling.
Near impossible to police.
At current prices I would suspect it cheaper for the Government to simply provide liability insurance, than the administration and policing of such a scheme.
I don't think motorists would be too impressed with that solution though.

I would much rather see greater education, i.e compulsory cycling proficiency. Remember that the moron being discussed in this topic, in all likelihood is the kind of person who would simply forego paying for insurance anyway. It is clear that his actions were reckless.

Also, do you expect commercial cycle insurance would actually pay out in the event of riding on the pavement? Given the loopholes motor insurance companies seem to have for getting out of claims I'd suspect not.

asbokid

thelawnet wrote: »

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

That is an awful lot of injuries, and those figures account only for injuries which are officially recorded.

Incidentally, who is recording these accident statistics? The A&E hospitals or the police forces?

Either way, I'm sure that figure heavily under represents the true number of injuries caused by cyclists.

Personally, I probably wouldn't involve the police if a cyclist hit me and caused only minor injury, since the likelihood of prosecution is close to zero. Moreover, since cyclists have no insurance, I would be unlikely to receive compensation.

Are cyclists even obliged, like motorists, to stop and exchange details when they are involved in an accident?

Returning to those figures, they also do not account for all the damage that is caused by cyclists to cars and other road vehicles.

There is a definite need for compulsory third party insurance for cyclists. Introducing such a law would be parliamentary time well spent.