'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

prowla

All that's needed is to make the general road vehicle laws apply to all road users on wheels.


It would solve a lot of issues in one go.



We don't need silly little specific laws to catch edge cases.

HornetSaver

daveyjp wrote: »

Te issue is there is currently no law which covers the situation where someone is killed by a cyclist driving dangerously.

There are substandard laws with substandard sentences which can be used. Personally I'd rather we focus on correctly and fully enforcing existing road laws on the hundreds of thousands of downright maniac car drivers (and a good few million more who routinely drive dangerously without quite falling into that category), rather than spend significant time on ensuring two or three people per year are convicted of the correctly titled offence.

Rosemary7391

HornetSaver wrote: »

There are substandard laws with substandard sentences which can be used. Personally I'd rather we focus on correctly and fully enforcing existing road laws on the hundreds of thousands of downright maniac car drivers (and a good few million more who routinely drive dangerously without quite falling into that category), rather than spend significant time on ensuring two or three people per year are convicted of the correctly titled offence.

I think you mean that there is the correctly titled offence available to charge them with if appropriate. Unless I missed it, those statistics referred to pedestrians killed in accidents with cyclists - not the number of cases where the cyclist would've been found guilty of any offence?

EachPenny

boliston wrote: »

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

Not knowing you are committing an offence is not an excuse the legal system normally accepts. If your vehicle is not fitted with a speedometer (and there are various types of vehicle were no speedometer is required) then it is the responsibility of the driver/rider/operator to correctly judge their speed... arguably they should drive/ride significantly below the applicable speed limit to ensure they don't inadvertently commit an offence.

EachPenny

HornetSaver wrote: »

There are substandard laws with substandard sentences which can be used. Personally I'd rather we focus on correctly and fully enforcing existing road laws on the hundreds of thousands of downright maniac car drivers (and a good few million more who routinely drive dangerously without quite falling into that category), rather than spend significant time on ensuring two or three people per year are convicted of the correctly titled offence.

Applying the same logic then shouldn't the proposed 'upskirting' law be put on hold until every rapist is caught and prosecuted?

The fact the law in one area is substandard and difficult to enforce should preclude new laws being created to make it easier to enforce/prosecute/convict in another area (or subset).

The problem with fully enforcing traffic law is that the authorities responsible for setting the rules would first have to do an enormous amount of work to make the rules consistent and enforceable with public support. Experience shows that strict enforcement of motoring law alientates the public and leads to a loss of public support for other police (and local authority) activities.

Many existing speed limits are set far too low for the conditions applying to that road - in many cases this has happened through laziness by the responsible authority, or cost-cutting. So long as a 'relaxed' approach is adopted to enforcement the majority of people won't complain, but that will change if 'full' enforcement is adopted.

EachPenny

Cornucopia wrote: »

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

A cycle computer (featuring speedometer function) costs under a tenner, and a well known online shopping site has examples for less than £3. Not really something that people couldn't afford to buy if the law was changed.... especially as some of the worst offenders have probably spent large three-figure sums on their bike.

I got one (some time ago) from a well known breakfast cereal manufacturer for two tokens and 50p p&p

HornetSaver

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

I think you mean that there is the correctly titled offence available to charge them with if appropriate. Unless I missed it, those statistics referred to pedestrians killed in accidents with cyclists - not the number of cases where the cyclist would've been found guilty of any offence?

When I discovered the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists, I felt no need to attempt to whittle the figure down further to strengthen my argument.

Rosemary7391

HornetSaver wrote: »

When I discovered the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists, I felt no need to attempt to whittle the figure down further to strengthen my argument.

That's fair!

EachPenny

HornetSaver wrote: »

When I discovered the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists, I felt no need to attempt to whittle the figure down further to strengthen my argument.

Do you consider the life of a pedestrian killed by a cyclist to be worth less than the life of a cyclist killed by a motor vehicle driver?

I assume not, in which case, why should the pedestrian not benefit from the same legal consideration the cyclist does?

Rosemary7391

EachPenny wrote: »

Do you consider the life of a pedestrian killed by a cyclist to be worth less than the life of a cyclist killed by a motor vehicle driver?

I assume not, in which case, why should the pedestrian not benefit from the same legal consideration the cyclist does?

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. 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.