'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

1246710

Comments

  • EachPenny
    EachPenny Posts: 12,239
    First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    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.
    But sometimes in law the objective is to send a message rather than actually achieving a specfic outcome. An event may be rare or unusual, but that doesn't make it any the less serious for the victim or the victim's family.

    My preference would be bringing cyclists and other operators of propelled wheeled vehicles (e.g. mobility scooters, mini mopeds, personal transporters, (kids) scooters) under the same legislative provisions as vehicle drivers and riders... but specific legislation for cyclists is a second-best alternative.

    The argument about focusing on something else could apply to any number of things... for example in London it might make sense to give up all traffic policing and put the resources into knife crime instead. But that would be a deeply unpopular decision.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
  • Cornucopia
    Cornucopia Posts: 16,146
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    EachPenny wrote: »
    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 ;)

    In principle that could work in a practical sense. However, one of the ways in which the influence of the State creeps over ever more areas of our lives is by "rules about rules". In other words, presumably you are talking about making it a mandatory requirement to have a cycling computer fixed to your bike and sufficiently well installed and well maintained as to be reasonably capable of providing an accurate reading.
  • Rotor
    Rotor Posts: 1,046
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    EachPenny wrote: »
    But sometimes in law the objective is to send a message rather than actually achieving a specfic outcome. An event may be rare or unusual, but that doesn't make it any the less serious for the victim or the victim's family.

    My preference would be bringing cyclists and other operators of propelled wheeled vehicles (e.g. mobility scooters, mini mopeds, personal transporters, (kids) scooters) under the same legislative provisions as vehicle drivers and riders... but specific legislation for cyclists is a second-best alternative.

    The argument about focusing on something else could apply to any number of things... for example in London it might make sense to give up all traffic policing and put the resources into knife crime instead. But that would be a deeply unpopular decision.

    Jeez - you want MOT's and Vehicle emission tax for skateboards and roller skates!! Why stop at that. how about any propulsion method then we can regulate pedestrians better.
  • prowla
    prowla Posts: 13,124
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Rotor wrote: »
    Jeez - you want MOT's and Vehicle emission tax for skateboards and roller skates!! Why stop at that. how about any propulsion method then we can regulate pedestrians better.
    There are no emissions from non-motorised vehicles.


    The road user on wheels is a term used in the HC.
  • Tallaght
    Tallaght Posts: 1,632
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    There is still a lot of cyclists cycling on pavements everywhere.They should have public liability insurance.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Newbie
    edited 12 August 2018 at 7:06PM
    ariba10 wrote: »
    I would really like to know how many people are killed by cyclists in a year?
    And how many cyclists are killed or injured by pedestrians gawping at their phones jaywalking into a bike.
    A cyclist travelling at say, 12 mph will come off harder and at greater speed into the road when a pedestrian bumps into them.
    I have suffered a broken collarbone when a pedestrian decided to trust his ears and think the road is clear of cars and step out in front of me. Cycle paths are also very good for that little trick
    .It would` nt matter how good or bad your little weedy bike brakes are , you re going to get hit and come off hard into the road then its pot luck which one heads for A and E
    No one has ever been killed by red light jumping cyclists but over 50 have been killed recently by motorists jumping red lights .We need to start demonising the idiot arrogant motorists not cyclists
    We already have enough legislation in place to cover cyclists involved in the very rare occurence of a death or injury. The young man last year on the track bike with only rear wheel braking unjustly is in jail right now for when a pedestrian made a mistake by walking directly in front of him. He could just as well have died in the collision
  • custardy
    custardy Posts: 38,365
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    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

    Is that the same cyclists drivers so often malign for holding them up for going so slowly?
  • custardy
    custardy Posts: 38,365
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    EachPenny wrote: »
    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.

    There is no offence to commit.
  • EachPenny
    EachPenny Posts: 12,239
    First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Cornucopia wrote: »
    In principle that could work in a practical sense. However, one of the ways in which the influence of the State creeps over ever more areas of our lives is by "rules about rules". In other words, presumably you are talking about making it a mandatory requirement to have a cycling computer fixed to your bike and sufficiently well installed and well maintained as to be reasonably capable of providing an accurate reading.
    It is certainly a slippery slope, but returning to Wild Rover's question, is it right that cyclists don't have to comply with 20mph speed limits? If not, then a change of law and some form of enforcement is required. Then perhaps it should be a matter of choice whether to invest in a speedometer, or risk the highly unlikely chance of being stopped and fined for speeding.


    A worthwhile comparison is the French law on having an alcohol testing kit in your car (effectively two kits). In the UK there is no compulsion to test yourself before driving, or to have a test kit, but everyone knows there is a legal limit for drinking and driving which is strictly enforced (if you happen to get stopped). The French approach is one of those rules about rules situations.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
  • EachPenny
    EachPenny Posts: 12,239
    First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    custardy wrote: »
    There is no offence to commit.
    I'm aware of that. I was responding to a post responding to Wild Rover's point about whether there should be an offence.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards