'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

custardy

EachPenny wrote: »

Not sure of the point you are making - the comparison I was drawing is that average speed is not reflective of maximum or even typical speed and not where the danger to others is found. Houbara's 12-14mph average could consist of some 20+mph 'sprints' followed by some waits at traffic lights and some uphill climbs. If they happen to hit 26mph in a street full of pedestrians then they are potentially a danger to other road users, even if the journey as a whole is taken at a leisurely 12mph. Exactly the same considerations apply to vehicle drivers.




A lot. Professional riders more so because they are operating on a 'time is money' basis.

Well looking at London. If my recollection is correct,its not professional riders getting killed?
nor (for the 1 case that the press were lighting up the torches and polishing the pitch forks) for the 1 cyclist caused fatality it wasn't a professional rider either?
Court docs also put his speed at 18mph,so its all good?

Malthusian

EachPenny wrote: »

If they happen to hit 26mph in a street full of pedestrians then they are potentially a danger to other road users, even if the journey as a whole is taken at a leisurely 12mph.

If the street is full of pedestrians then the road is almost certainly full of vehicles, so getting to 26mph will be an impressive feat. The only places I ever manage to get near that speed are on wide-open A roads or country roads - built-up areas are too stop-start.

Houbara is far more likely to be doing 10mph in built-up areas and 26mph on an empty downhill country road somewhere than vice versa.

A lot. Professional riders more so because they are operating on a 'time is money' basis.

So now we're not just talking about cyclists fit enough to reach 20mph+ (not forgetting that you usually brake before a collision so the velocity of impact is much lower), we're talking about cyclists fit enough to hit that speed with a Deliveroo cube on their backs. Are London cyclists all on the asthma medication?

Norman_Castle

Pennywise wrote: »

Why not just beef up and simplify the existing laws. Not sure why existing manslaughter laws aren't enough to cover someone who kills by driving/riding any form of vehicle carelessly.

Death by dangerous driving was introduced because juries didn't want to convict for manslaughter but would convict for the seemingly lesser charge of death by dangerous driving.
If prosecuting a cyclist after causing a death prosecutors may prosecute for a lesser charge to avoid a not guilty manslaughter verdict. If convicted for the lesser charge the sentence will also be lower.


http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/


From the above,
"A cyclist who is considered to have caused death by dangerous cycling may be charged with involuntary manslaughter. However given the statutory definition of dangerous cycling this would have to entail riding the bicycle in an obviously and flagrantly dangerous manner. There are probably no circumstances in which a cyclist who has committed the proposed offence of causing death by dangerous cycling has not also committed the offence of (gross negligence) manslaughter. There is only therefore any point in introducing a statutory offence of causing death by dangerous cycling if (as was felt to be the case with motorists in the 1950s) guilty people are walking free because of a reluctance of a jury to convict."

dori2o

There's issues with all groups or road users, car drivers, motor cyclists and cyclists.

Today for instance, I've seen the actions of 3 idiots in cars and several idiots on bikes just commuting to and from work.

2 of the car drivers decided they were far too important to wait in a small queue of traffic, and overtook the queue, forcing drivers approaching from the opposite direction to take evasive manouvers, with one car almost colliding with a pedestrian.

The other idiot, unhappy at the fact that the lights on his right turn filter lane had changed to red and the car in front of him had quite rightly stopped, decided to move back into the left hand lane of moving traffic which was signalled to go straight on, cutting up a young lady driver in the process, then made a right turn around the left side of the traffic island, and almost into a bus which was now travelling straight on from the opposite direction.

Funnily enough 2 had big flash German saloon cars and the other was in a Bentley.

I have also noticed that indicators must be optional extra's in these big expensive cars. Given they pay so much for these cars you'd think they could afford the extra cost of indicators.

As for cyclist the vast majority I come across are fine. Pay attention to the road and their surroundings, are courteous to others, obay the rules of the road, have lights, helmets, etc etc.

Some however are idiots.

Most are kids, riding 4 abreast down a very busy A road giving abuse to the drivers behind them. Playing chicken with on-coming traffic.

Those who are not kids, but who are idiots, do various things to intentionally antagonise drivers, such as swerve across the road intentionally for no reason.

Intentionally slow down at left turns causing cars to hit the anchors, especially where they are turning left.

Ignore traffic lights and pedestrian crossings.

Cut across the path of drivers lines up to turn right, i.e. Driver has indicated, moved to the centre of the road in preperation to turn right into a street/road, the cyclist, instead of taking the natural and safe line of undertaking the car, overtakes the car by riding into oncoming traffic, then cuts across the front of the driver as they prepare to turn.

A lot of these idiot cyclists are messengers for Uber/Deliveroo/other messenger and delivery companies.

For me, I have always believed that cyclists over 18, should have a form of public liability insurance.

If a cyclist hits a vehicle and damages it, which does happen, and despite common rhetoric it's not always the car/vehicle drivers fault, then the car driver is expected to take it on the chin and face the bills, higher insurance payments etc in order to get the vehicle repaired.

Similarly if a cyclist hits a pedestrian, there is little recourse if they are injured and have costs because of injuries etc.

Insurance offers that protection to all parties, including the cyclist.

As road users I believe they should be subject to the same laws as other road users, and if its necessary to have specific laws for them, assuming they cannot be absorbed into existing laws, then that is what must be done.

Dangerous actions on a bike can result in injury and death. Therefore there needs to be the ability to prosecute these people in an effective way, and a way which means they cannot escape with minimal and pathetic sentences/consequences because the law is inadequate.

boliston

dori2o wrote: »

...
For me, I have always believed that cyclists over 18, should have a form of public liability insurance. ....

The cost of enforcing this could be prohibitive as it would require some sort of registration plate for the bicycle that could be detected by anpr cameras - to be totally fair pedestrians should also be required to wear number plates and hold insurance as often they will simply walk into the road (often drunk) and cause an accident.

dori2o

boliston wrote: »

The cost of enforcing this could be prohibitive as it would require some sort of registration plate for the bicycle that could be detected by anpr cameras - to be totally fair pedestrians should also be required to wear number plates and hold insurance as often they will simply walk into the road (often drunk) and cause an accident.

But the difference is, as pedestrians, except on private roads, they always have right of way.

People, especially cyclists, like to put obstacles in the way whenever anything is suggested that might make cyclists responsible for their actions.

Could it be because despite their protestations, it is not always the car/van/truck driver who is at fault for actions involving cyclists?

Motorbikes, of all sizes, including those scooters/mopeds that do no more than 40/50mph require registration and carry number plates.

Extending this to cyclists, or having some other similar scheme wouldn't be difficult to introduce.

It's also about fairness. Drivers/motorcyclists pay hundreds/thousands of pounds a year in tax, insurance, licence fees.

The blame for most accidents is always placed on the driver, and it is the driver who must fight, and face the costs of that fight, to prove they are not at fault. Cyclists suffer none of that at this time.

I personally would go further and have cyclists pay an annual fee, which would be ringfenced and used to invest in, build and improve a proper national cycle network.

But I'm not against cyclists. I used to be one. However, disability now prevents me from still being one. Most cyclists are fine. Just as the vast majority of car drivers are no problem to others.

Speaking of car/van drivers, I think there are things that can and should be done to better monitor drivers.

I think black boxes, like those some insurance companies use for new drivers, I think they should be installed in every car. Linked to a national database, with wireless upload points to upload the data to a national database.

Possibly advance this to include dash cam footage (video only, no audio) and again, insist that every car has a dash cam. Again have wireless uploads points throughout the road network.

Anything that will help to curb the idiot drivers on the road that make the ordinary drivers lives a misery.

I used to love driving. I'd often just get in the car and drive. Not to anywhere in particular, just to drive about. Especially when the kids were young.

Now I can only drive for 25/30 minutes at a time due to my leg, but I really don't enjoy it because of the minority (unfortunately an increasing minority) of idiot drivers who believe the rules dont apply to them, can do as they please, are too good/special to have to wait in queues and so jump ques, jump from lane to lane, cutting drivers up, flashing lights on the motorway in the fast lane even where the driver in front is travelling in well in excess of the speed limits, and generally being dangerous on the road.

They honestly don't believe they are in the wrong and will verbally abuse those who they feel are 'in their way', or holding them up. They even resort to actions such as brake testing drivers when they don't move out of the way quick enough.

Johnmcl7

dori2o wrote: »

Could it be because despite their protestations, it is not always the car/van/truck driver who is at fault for actions involving cyclists?

No-one is claiming that cyclist are never at fault apart from you.

Motorbikes, of all sizes, including those scooters/mopeds that do no more than 40/50mph require registration and carry number plates.

Extending this to cyclists, or having some other similar scheme wouldn't be difficult to introduce.

Yes it would, no country in the world has ever managed such a registration scheme and any studies into trying it have shown it to be completely infeasible.

It's also about fairness. Drivers/motorcyclists pay hundreds/thousands of pounds a year in tax, insurance, licence fees.

Yet what you've said is nothing to do with fairness. Motorists actually pay VED at the same rate as cyclists - zero for vehicles with no emissions. If anything it's unfair for cyclists as a large proportion of cyclists are also car owners including myself so I have to pay a large amount of VED and insurance for a car that is almost never used.

The reason the insurance is higher for motor vehicles is nothing to do with fairness, it's simply because if you crash your car you're likely to do far more damage than a pedal bike.

The blame for most accidents is always placed on the driver, and it is the driver who must fight, and face the costs of that fight, to prove they are not at fault. Cyclists suffer none of that at this time.

This is completely wrong no matter how many times you repeat it, there is no presumed liability in the UK with cyclists. Although we're one of very few countries in Europe that don't have it and it works well in other countries.

I personally would go further and have cyclists pay an annual fee, which would be ringfenced and used to invest in, build and improve a proper national cycle network.

Right so car drivers are not charged to use the roads (road tax has long been abolished and funding for roads comes out of general taxation) even though the vehicles are the cause of pollution, road wear etc. but cyclists who improve their health, take up less space and don't pollute should be charged for it. Marvellous!

But I'm not against cyclists. I used to be one. However, disability now prevents me from still being one. Most cyclists are fine. Just as the vast majority of car drivers are no problem to others.

Ah yes, you're not against cyclists yet your post completes the entire spectrum of nonsense anti-cyclist points, whether you like to admit it or not you are very anti-cyclist. These problems you believe exist with cyclists are simply not an issue in reality even though those against cycling make it out as if they are, it's part of a bigger problem which sadly sits right at the centre of the government:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/cyclists-conservatives-laws-highway-code-road-deaths-laws-a8489746.html

Possibly the prominent point in the article is that you're more likely to be killed by christmas decorations than cyclists, perhaps you should get together an action plan to register christmas decorations, insurance and additional taxes to handle such a lethal winter problem?

Norman_Castle

dori2o wrote: »

People, especially cyclists, like to put obstacles in the way whenever anything is suggested that might make cyclists responsible for their actions.

People, including cyclists, are entitled to opinions. If proposals were worthwhile and workable they wouldn't be so easily dismissed.

Licensed and insured road users generally refuse to accept responsibility whenever possible.

It's also about fairness. Drivers/motorcyclists pay hundreds/thousands of pounds a year in tax, insurance, licence fees.

My neighbouring dentist cycles to work, I suspect he's a higher rate taxpayer, he's also a car owner. His cycling reduces congestion and pollution. Is it fair he should pay even more tax just to appease motorists?
Insurance costs are based on risk. Complain to insurers if you think thats unfair.
License fees? £1.40 per year to renew a photo card license which many fail to do.

DCodd

prowla wrote: »

Impatient cyclists who feel that pedestrians who are simply walking along the pavement should jump out of their way...

Where did I say that I was impatient? I never pass a pedestrian unless they are a) aware that I am there and b) I have enough room to do so. However, when on a shared path it is just plain common decency to respect all users and common sense to be aware of others using the path.


Here lies the biggest problem, many pedestrians believe that cyclists should be on the road and many drivers believe that cyclists should be anywhere but on the road.

NeilCr

DCodd wrote: »

Where did I say that I was impatient? I never pass a pedestrian unless they are a) aware that I am there and b) I have enough room to do so. However, when on a shared path it is just plain common decency to respect all users and common sense to be aware of others using the path.


Here lies the biggest problem, many pedestrians believe that cyclists should be on the road and many drivers believe that cyclists should be anywhere but on the road.

Maybe it's because pedestrians know it's an offence to cycle on a pavement

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike

Having said that I fully agree with the comments in the link about it being safer for some cyclists.

As ever, this is down to your experience. If I'd lived here all my life (quietish seaside town) I would, as a pedestrian, have no problems with cyclists. Apart from the odd kid showing off they behave reasonably - stop at lights, don't switch between road and pavement to get past a red light, if they are on the pavement they cycle sensibly. We have lovely seaside walks/cycle paths where pedestrians and cyclists respect each other.

However, having been in London for much of my life, I find myself agreeing with EachPenny. There are a significant number of cyclists who have absolutely no respect for anyone else. They fly through red lights, they switch between pavement and road (not because they are worried about drivers but because it's quicker), they hassle you on pavements if you don't get out of the way quickly enough (and we are talking busy streets here. I've been sworn at by someone who I shouted after because he went across a red light, run into, just missed by a cyclist going down a one way street the wrong way etc etc.

It's a shame as these "Lycra clad idiots" create a bad impression which doesn't reflect how the majority of cyclists act.