Cycling News (2)

brat

Tilt wrote: »

brat wrote:

...which would have put him in jail for significantly longer.

Quite, but not so had the girl have been killed while he was riding a bike.

Perhaps. There are a few offences that can be used against motorists and cyclists in such scenarios.
The offence used against this cyclist was "Causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving" contrary to S35 of the Offences Aganst the Person Act 1861. This carries a maximum imprisonment of two years.
If deemed appropriate a cyclist or motorist could be charged with manslaughter which carries a maximum term of life imprisonment.
I've only considered manslaughter in one case against a motorist who was playing a game of 'chicken' with a friend which all went horribly wrong. For me, manslaughter was the right offence, although the driver's (dodgy) explanation of the incident meant that it was [STRIKE]easier [/STRIKE] more appropriate for CPS to charge dangerous driving.

Dangerous driving carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years. Wanton and furious driving/cycling has a maximum term of 2 years. If it was felt that the culpability of the cyclist warranted a higher term of imprisonment than can be offered by the furious cycling offence, CPS would be right to consider manslaughter.

rdr

Brat

Are there circumstances in whicn a driver (or cyclist) in likely to be charged with assault as opposed to dangerous/careless driving. I'm thinking of cases where the person in control of the vehicle uses it delibrately to frighten or injure another person.
In particular some of the road rage and punishment pass helmet cam videos look like clear cases of assault (with weapons weighing several tonnes) to me.

brat

rdr wrote: »

Brat

Are there circumstances in whicn a driver (or cyclist) in likely to be charged with assault as opposed to dangerous/careless driving. I'm thinking of cases where the person in control of the vehicle uses it delibrately to frighten or injure another person.
In particular some of the road rage and punishment pass helmet cam videos look like clear cases of assault (with weapons weighing several tonnes) to me.

Yes. CPS do prefer if possible to use Road Traffic Act offences for RTCs if possible, but a clear intent to injure should be dealt with as an assault. Intent is often difficult to establish, which does mean that many are dealt with as careless/dangerous driving.

Nasqueron

rdr wrote: »

Brat

Are there circumstances in whicn a driver (or cyclist) in likely to be charged with assault as opposed to dangerous/careless driving. I'm thinking of cases where the person in control of the vehicle uses it delibrately to frighten or injure another person.
In particular some of the road rage and punishment pass helmet cam videos look like clear cases of assault (with weapons weighing several tonnes) to me.

There was an infamous case of a bus driver who used his bus as a weapon against a cyclist - got 17 months, banned from driving for 2.5 years and lost his job - he was charged with dangerous driving and causing grievous bodily harm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSPXp47enGY

Johnmcl7

This one is in the news today where a driver deliberately killed a cyclist (due to him seeing his ex-partner) and jailed for 25 years:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35101463

John

Teapot55

AndyBSG wrote: »

Seems I definitely am missing something?

The OP says the cyclist hit a pedestrian who stepped out in front of the cyclist. The OP clarifies there were no pedestrian lights but the cyclist was fined for jumping ared light?

Or is the OP missing a bit of info in that there was a set of traffic lights but they were non pedestrian ones?

If that is the case and the cyclist did jump a red light then yes he should have been fined.

Can the OP clarify if

- It was a junction with no lights

OR

- It was a junction with lights but no pedestrian crossing

Clearly it was a junction with lights, or there would have been no red light to run. It is a junction with marked places for pedestrians to cross, but there are no pedestrian lights. It would have seemed safe for the young woman to cross, because the motor vehicles in the other lanes had stopped. The cycle in the right-hand-turn lane (the one next to the central reservation where the young woman was waiting) was the only vehicle in that lane. If the young woman had glanced to her left she would have seen the cyclist and not stepped into his path. Nobody should run red lights and nobody, including pedestrians should make any manoeuvre without looking properly. Bad decisions all round.

Teapot55

MacMickster wrote: »

Well there clearly were traffic lights - just not a pedestrian crossing.

I envisage pedestrian walking towards a crossroads junction and seeing the lights were green for north/south traffic. If she can see that nothing is coming from the north/south direction she should be free to step out without having to look east/west as those lights must be red - and then some a55hole cyclist who doesn't do red lights ploughs straight into her - but another cyclist watching out of a window hurries to defend the said a55hole.

I have had a look down below and I do not have any wheels attached to my nether regions. I especially did not have a bicycle with me in the hotel dining room from where I observed the collision. When I left the hotel I continued along the road as a pedestrian as I always do. I suppose I could make crass generalisations about <<MEN!>> MacMickster, but I won't, because the people who ride too close to me on shared pavements or use their mobiles whilst driving, or weave dangerously from lane to lane on dual carriageways & motorways, or, yes, jump red lights, are people. Yes people. Arrogant, thoughtless, self-centred. Some receive their just deserts; most do not, hence people complain on forums like this.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Perhaps. There are a few offences that can be used against motorists and cyclists in such scenarios.
The offence used against this cyclist was "Causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving" contrary to S35 of the Offences Aganst the Person Act 1861. This carries a maximum imprisonment of two years.
If deemed appropriate a cyclist or motorist could be charged with manslaughter which carries a maximum term of life imprisonment.
I've only considered manslaughter in one case against a motorist who was playing a game of 'chicken' with a friend which all went horribly wrong. For me, manslaughter was the right offence, although the driver's (dodgy) explanation of the incident meant that it was [STRIKE]easier [/STRIKE] more appropriate for CPS to charge dangerous driving.

Dangerous driving carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years. Wanton and furious driving/cycling has a maximum term of 2 years. If it was felt that the culpability of the cyclist warranted a higher term of imprisonment than can be offered by the furious cycling offence, CPS would be right to consider manslaughter.

Wouldn't you agree that traffic conditions have 'moved on' significantly since that act became statute and as such should seriously be updated? I would suggest for a start that modern cycles can travel a lot faster than in those days!

brat

Tilt wrote: »

brat wrote: »

The offence used against this cyclist was "Causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving" contrary to S35 of the Offences Aganst the Person Act 1861. This carries a maximum imprisonment of two years.

Wouldn't you agree that traffic conditions have 'moved on' significantly since that act became statute and as such should seriously be updated? I would suggest for a start that modern cycles can travel a lot faster than in those days!

In punishment terms it's quite similar to the offence of dangerous driving, which has a maximum jail term of 2 years, although recent amendments have extended the maximum sentence to 5 years if serious injury is inflicted.

Road Traffic legislation has always reflected in its sentencing, the different modes of transport used. So...

• A motorist who injures someone by negligent driving could be jailed for up to 5 years
• A cyclist who injures someone by negligent cycling could be jailed for up to 2 years
• A pedestrian who injures someone by negligent walking is not punishable under the Road Traffic Act

As said earlier, all could be considered for GBH, GBH with intent, mansalughter or murder if appropriate, with life imprisonment available. The highest non-fatal sentence applicable is 25 years for the S18 GBH with intent.

I see no good moral reason why a cyclist should be punished less for similar acts of aggression or danger that lead to the same level of third party injury.
In legal terms I guess the difference is that the motorist is deemed to be responsible for a significantly more dangerous vehicle, and as such, the penalties should reflect that.

Strider590

brat wrote: »

I see no good moral reason why a cyclist should be punished less for similar acts of aggression or danger that lead to the same level of third party injury.
In legal terms I guess the difference is that the motorist is deemed to be responsible for a significantly more dangerous vehicle, and as such, the penalties should reflect that.

It's like being attacked by someone wielding a sledgehammer versus someone wielding a toffee hammer, either could just cause a minor bruise, but the idiot with the 16lb sledge is going to find themselves in much deeper water.