Death by dangerous cycling law would not improve road safety

boliston wrote: »

This is not a fair analogy as a track car can be made street legal - also the speed of the cyclist was not an issue as it was in the region of 20mph which is probably slower than many powered vehicles in that part of london

Its a perfectly fair anology. The bike could have been made legal by fitting brakes.

boliston wrote: »

just been to berlin and it's the complete opposite there - pedestrians will wait to cross a street even if no cars are in sight!

It's a German thing. Completely different attitude. They are "programmed" to follow rules and abide by laws. It's just the way they are.

At a place where I once worked, we had 2 Germans working in the quality control department. They were awesome. Absolute sods for sticking to the rules and checking every last detail, and not accepting half-baked excuses or "near enough" answers from the suppliers nor shop floor when anything was wrong. Exactly the kind of people you want in a QC department. Trouble was, of course, they were too strict and couldn't understand the concept of something not mattering if it wasn't quite right - no logical thought at all - so we had to be VERY specific with the specifications to allow more margin of error in things that didn't matter as much.

I can exactly visualise a German stood at a pedestrian crossing waiting for the light to change even though there wasn't a single vehicle in sight. It's in their dna.

Pennywise wrote: »

I can exactly visualise a German stood at a pedestrian crossing waiting for the light to change even though there wasn't a single vehicle in sight. It's in their dna.

I got told off in Munich by a bystander for crossing in those circumstances. When I asked why it was a problem. The best that they could come was that it was a bad example to children. Despite it being after midnight in an area completely devoid of both traffic and children.

At a place where I once worked, we had 2 Germans working in the quality control department. They were awesome. Absolute sods for sticking to the rules and checking every last detail, and not accepting half-baked excuses or "near enough" answers from the suppliers nor shop floor when anything was wrong. Exactly the kind of people you want in a QC department. Trouble was, of course, they were too strict and couldn't understand the concept of something not mattering if it wasn't quite right - no logical thought at all - so we had to be VERY specific with the specifications to allow more margin of error in things that didn't matter as much.

Apparently, that was the reason the Germans had a shortage of radio and other electronic equipment in WW2. A comparison of captured British equipment and their own revealed that British sets were not as sophisticated as their German equivalents but reliable and good enough to get the job done.

A quote attributed to Hermann Göring: "There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked".


Getting back to cycling. It is also interesting to note that it is rare to see a German cyclist wearing helmet and also that there are strict rules regarding cycling on a pavement not designated as a cycleway. Basically, it's children only. Riding while wearing ear/headphones is also banned.

bouicca21 wrote: »

Why is killing someone by reckless cycling in the 21st century any different to killing them in the 19th? The 'weapon' is still a bike, the victim is still dead.

We're worth more now than then.

The max sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years now, it was 5 years in the 90s. There was no offence of causing death by careless driving until 2008 IIRC.

Much more interesting to discuss is why it is so difficult to get a manslaughter conviction when someone is killed in an RTA.

There is a real resistance to use manslaughter in such cases, because there are other more appropriate offences.

My nearest to getting a manslaughter charge to court was this case, which was effectively a 'game' of 'chicken' which went badly wrong. The driver drove towards his mate who was standing in the middle of the road refusing to move. They both tried to avoid each other at the last minute, but both moved in the same direction.
The initial decision was to charge manslaughter because it had more culpable intent than is usual for the specific driving offence. But even then, there was a change of mind and the S1 RTA offence was preferred.