'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

custardy

Finally,the answer of a safe route for these super human pro riders

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-45183556

Nasqueron

NeilCr wrote: »

As it should be - and I haven't argued with that. But, it's still an offence and in London, anyway, there are a number of Uber cyclists who aren't on the pavement because it's the "safe place to be".

Indeed, but there are 1m uninsured drivers on our roads, who knows how many cars with no VED (and probably no MOT), red light jumping cars, cars driving on pavements and so on. Catch and fine the people doing it e.g. putting an ID on the uber bag

HornetSaver

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

It's not that they're worth less as individuals. But given the numbers involved, we could almost certainly prevent more deaths by focusing on something else.

Exactly, it's all about the numbers.



In 2010 the following causes of death were more common in the UK than being a pedestrian hit by a cyclist:

• Being bitten by a dog.
• Accidental suffocation in bed
• Drowning in bathtub
• Contact with hornets, wasps and bees
• Starvation
• Pedestrian in collision with motorbike

I wouldn't even care to speculate on the reaction on these forums if someone were to suggest that legislation is needed to reduce instances of people drowning in their bathtubs (those figures do include accidental and deliberate to be fair), dying from bee/wasp/hornet stings, or that not enough is being done in Britain to prevent deaths from starvation.

I'm not sure that making it a specific offence would make anyone any safer tbh - people who cycle dangerously are more likely to hurt themselves than anyone else. If self preservation doesn't convince someone to cycle more safely then I don't think the prospect of being done for cycling dangerously will.

Indeed. To translate this back to cars, I'm curious whether there's any correlation at all between the internal safety features of a make of car, and that make's likelihood to be involved in a life-threatening crash. There might even be a negative correlation - that the safer the car is for the driver, the less safely that person drives and therefore the greater a danger they represent to others.

Malthusian

HornetSaver wrote: »

There might even be a negative correlation - that the safer the car is for the driver, the less safely that person drives and therefore the greater a danger they represent to others.

Given the thoroughly proven statistical fact that accidents are more common when seatbelts are compulsory (but deaths from those accidents are less common, which is why seatbelts are a good idea) I would say it's not a might, but an absolute certainty.

Hence the old joke that the best way to ensure safe driving would be a giant spike jutting out of the steering wheel.

Retrogamer

But yet when pedestrians step into traffic when it's not clear and cause accidents or death no one ever blinks an eye.