'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

maisie_cat

ariba10 wrote: »

I would really like to know how many people are killed by cyclists in a year?

In 2016 3 people were killed by cyclists and another 100 or so seriously injured. I have had a couple of near misses, every time it has been a pedestrian stepping out onto the road and simply not looking/seeing. To make a case stick would involve proving negligence and that the pedestrian had not been negligent. It does seem a waste of current limited law making time, perhaps it's an emotive one and the politicians are doing it for political gain?

daveyjp

unforeseen wrote: »

Wouldn't normal manslaughter laws cover it? You have caused a death by your negligence/recklessness so it's manslaughter.

Having a separate law is just creating a subset of an existing law to make statistics easier.

No, otherwise it would have been used in the case which is leading to this review.

Manslaughter would also be used for any death by road vehicle, it isn't.

Cornucopia

London has a large number of active cyclists. Some of this cycling is somewhat lawless or unruly, and the approach up to now has been for the authorities to be generally tolerant of this in the name of supporting a worthy activity.

Perhaps this review is a sign that that tolerance is coming to end?

EachPenny

PasturesNew wrote: »

... they spend their time pontificating about "generally pretty harmless" blokes on the odd bicycle.

Blokes on the odd bicycle isn't where this law is targeted, it is addressing the lack of existing law covering people who cycle in a particularly dangerous way and cause death as a result.

unforeseen wrote: »

Wouldn't normal manslaughter laws cover it? You have caused a death by your negligence/recklessness so it's manslaughter.

Having a separate law is just creating a subset of an existing law to make statistics easier.

The same might be said of causing death by negligent/reckless driving of a car/lorry/bus/motorcycle, but society has decided that specific laws are justified in those circumstances, so why should cyclists be exempt?

The important statistics are gathered using police records of accidents reported to them (STATS19). Ease of gathering statistics on the number of succesful convictions for manslaughter related offences is not important enough to justify changing the law.

ariba10 wrote: »

I would really like to know how many people are killed by cyclists in a year?

Too many (even if it was only one).

EachPenny

Cornucopia wrote: »

London has a large number of active cyclists. Some of this cycling is somewhat lawless or unruly, and the approach up to now has been for the authorities to be generally tolerant of this in the name of supporting a worthy activity.

Perhaps this review is a sign that that tolerance is coming to end?

For policy and political reasons London has had something of a blind spot when it comes to cyclists being responsible and not breaking the law. The theory is that encouraging cycling is so important that nothing negative should be said or done in relation to cycling.

The flaw in that plan is that at some point lawless and unruly cycling has the effect of putting other people off cycling, or more importantly discouraging walking, so it was only a matter of time before 'critical mass' meant that tougher laws on cycling were required.

Cornucopia

unforeseen wrote: »

Wouldn't normal manslaughter laws cover it? You have caused a death by your negligence/recklessness so it's manslaughter.

I suspect that at the margins, the Manslaughter laws might prove incapable of addressing cases where the dynamics of the propulsion of the cycle were a major consideration.

A detailed comparison of the two pieces of legislation would no doubt reveal the thinking.

Cornucopia

EachPenny wrote: »

For policy and political reasons London has had something of a blind spot when it comes to cyclists being responsible and not breaking the law. The theory is that encouraging cycling is so important that nothing negative should be said or done in relation to cycling.

The flaw in that plan is that at some point lawless and unruly cycling has the effect of putting other people off cycling, or more importantly discouraging walking, so it was only a matter of time before 'critical mass' meant that tougher laws on cycling were required.

I think I might even go further than that - whilst it was a case of complaints mainly from Drivers, the authorities were prepared to dismiss that.

The media has also been on the case of cyclist vs. HGV incidents. I suggested in a previous thread that a speedy cyclist travelling at up to 30mph may have little or no chance when an HGV turns left immediately in front of them because the distance to impact is already smaller than the cyclist's stopping distance. (The thinking distances at 20mph and 30mph are 6 and 9 metres respectively, and braking might add 25-100% to that depending on road conditions and slope).

The blame for such an incident will probably lie with the HGV driver, though that may not be much consolation depending on the outcome.

[Deleted User]

We now have a huge network of 20 mph speed limits in Edinburgh. Quite often, when doing that speed, I am overtaken on the inside by cyclists.

I understand that speed limits do not apply to cyclists, but that local authorities may impose them yet rarely do.

Especially in 20 mph zones, SHOULD the same speed limits apply to cyclists as apply to everyone else?

WR

Cornucopia

Wild_Rover wrote: »

Especially in 20 mph zones, SHOULD the same speed limits apply to cyclists as apply to everyone else?

How would that work when cyclists usually have no means of measuring their instantaneous speed?

I think you could possibly have guidance or maybe bye-laws based on painting speed measurement lines on the road surface, but making it an offence of the same seriousness as speeding in a car would be difficult (not that such speeding is properly enforced, anyway).

A cycle travelling at 20mph would cover around 45m in 5 seconds. Therefore lines painted on the road at 45m intervals could be used to roughly estimate speed by counting off 5 seconds from one to the next.

Alternatively, existing regularly-spaced road features such as lane markings or street lights could be used for the purpose by simply posting the relevant time interval on a sign. e.g. if streetlamps are 90m apart, then a cyclist would be travelling at more than 20mph if they covered the distance between them in less than 10 seconds.

boliston

Wild_Rover wrote: »

We now have a huge network of 20 mph speed limits in Edinburgh. Quite often, when doing that speed, I am overtaken on the inside by cyclists.

I understand that speed limits do not apply to cyclists, but that local authorities may impose them yet rarely do.

Especially in 20 mph zones, SHOULD the same speed limits apply to cyclists as apply to everyone else?

WR

As bicycles don't normally have a speedometer it would be a difficult law to enforce