'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
Options
Comments
-
Not necessarily so. The front end of modern cars is designed to reduce the damage to pedestrians in the event of a collision. The front ends of many bikes have hard projections, sharp edges and things which can 'catch' or entrap.
Injury to pedestrians usually happens when some of the kinetic energy of the vehicle (and occupants) is transferred to the pedestrian. The amount of kinetic energy required to do damage (e.g. break bones) is not very much, and a cyclist travelling at 20mph has enough. The kind of injuries suffered will depend on how the kinetic energy is transferred - and cycles are not designed to do so in a kind way.
As for stopping in a shorter distance, that depends whether the cycle is fitted with effective brakes, if the brakes are properly maintained, and if the tyres have sufficient grip. Cycles are not subject to the same legal requirements for fitting and maintenance of equipment which aids stopping quickly and under control (jam the brakes on in a car and ABS will help you steer, jam on the brakes on a cycle and you risk going over the handlebars). We'd need to do the calculations.
20mph would suggest little or no breaking for most cyclists average speed0 -
Why does it always have to be cycles vs cars? You won't get drivers to respect cyclists when (some) cyclists spit venom and contempt for (all) car drivers.Seems like yet another large hammer to crack a very small nut. How many times would you say cyclists are over the road speed limit vs cars?
For practical purposes what we are talking about is only areas with 20mph speed limts. The 20 mph limit is imposed because there may be large numbers of pedestrians or other vulnerable road users. In these circumstances, what is the justification for some road users to be exempt from a speed limit which applies to everyone else?"In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
Why does it always have to be cycles vs cars? You won't get drivers to respect cyclists when (some) cyclists spit venom and contempt for (all) car drivers.
For practical purposes what we are talking about is only areas with 20mph speed limts. The 20 mph limit is imposed because there may be large numbers of pedestrians or other vulnerable road users. In these circumstances, what is the justification for some road users to be exempt from a speed limit which applies to everyone else?
Who needs drivers respect? I drive 7 days a week,5 for work purposes. Am I to bestow this honour on cyclists?
Or is it assumed cyclists need to earn that?
My point is,is there a massive issue requiring time and money spent on new laws? Im certainly not being beaten by cyclists in the 20mph zones in Edinburgh, when doing 20mph.0 -
What difficulty? There would need to be a legal process to amend either legislation or traffic orders, then a publicity campaign so people know from a certain date that the law on speed limits now also applies to cyclists. Not difficult at all.Rosemary7391 wrote: »We would have to do the calculations, agreed. But of interest is the effect of a reduction in speed of the bicycle - I agree being hit is going to be unpleasant and dangerous at 20mph or 30mph, but is the reduction in potential harm enough to justify the difficulty of introducing speed limits for cycles?
Why would cycling rates reduce? How many cyclists would stop cycling because the law says they have to ride at no more than 20mph in a 20mph zone/limit?Rosemary7391 wrote: »And the offset in reducing cycling rates, which affects public health?
Conversely, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, how many extra people will take up walking and cycling if the excesses of a few cyclists were curbed? One of the factors putting potential casual cyclists off taking up cycling is the 'lycra lout' image cycling has in some areas of the country - London in particular. Tackling the issue of reckless and dangerous cycling is likely to result in improved public health outcomes if anything."In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
This just came up on my Twitter. Want to know why I often get so exasperated?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39356514
Drives over a 4 year old on the pavement and kills her.
No conviction.
Yet here we are debating cyclists speeding.0 -
The only justification for this as well as most law changes/introductions are to justify the high salaries that the legal profession demand.
They make it that ridiculously complicated that someone killing someone with their ignorance in a car is different to someone killing someone with their ignorance on a bicycle. Its like saying shooting someone with an ak47 is different than shooting someone with a ar15. Everyone knows its not.
The simple fact is someone killing someone in a car will yield different outcomes. | know of a story where a young lad was caught texting whilst driving. 3 points, the next time he was caught was slightly after he had just killed two young women. 6 years, hes expected to be out in 3. And then theres stories of football agent who killed one person and injured another whilst texting (90 second prior to their accident) who got sentenced to 7 years but later increased to 9 years.
Its perverse and doesnt offer justice or equally its doesnt offer universal punishment.
Our legal system is around 300 years old. Wanton and furious cycling reflects that. Thats not to say we need a law for prosecuting cyclists who kill. We just need laws the ensure anyone who kills with their negligence is held to account and punished accordingly.
Consider grenfell. After the results of that are we going to have a law that says 'if you apply inferior cladding that results in the death of dozens of people you're bad'? Nope, they will face corporate manslaughter charges. The same law that is applicable if you run someone over with an inadequately serviced forklift truck. Completely different vehicles/cause of death yet for some reason the same law is applicable. But then highly paid people who will be paid for handling those cases are suggesting we should have a specific law for death by cyclist and death by car, stupid.0 -
What difficulty? There would need to be a legal process to amend either legislation or traffic orders, then a publicity campaign so people know from a certain date that the law on speed limits now also applies to cyclists. Not difficult at all.
Just briefly - as discussed above, speedometers for bikes. And registration for enforcement purposes? That would put off a lot of folk.
Why would cycling rates reduce? How many cyclists would stop cycling because the law says they have to ride at no more than 20mph in a 20mph zone/limit?
Conversely, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, how many extra people will take up walking and cycling if the excesses of a few cyclists were curbed? One of the factors putting potential casual cyclists off taking up cycling is the 'lycra lout' image cycling has in some areas of the country - London in particular. Tackling the issue of reckless and dangerous cycling is likely to result in improved public health outcomes if anything.
If that was all the law said we'd have very little change as a result.
All this for the few folk who can+do exceed 20mph in an urban setting?0 -
Cyclists who want to stay alive and uninjured do. It is one of the basic principles of road safety that mutual respect is essential to reduce casualties, vehicle drivers not respecting cyclists needs (passing space, not turning left in front of them, road positioning) is a significant cause of cycle casualties. If cyclists had the respect of more vehicle drivers then fewer would get killed or injured.Who needs drivers respect? I drive 7 days a week,5 for work purposes. Am I to bestow this honour on cyclists?
Or is it assumed cyclists need to earn that?
Cycling should be a means of transport and leisure, it shouldn't be a willy-waving contest. Cyclists with a bad attitude and no respect for other road users are just as guilty as other vehicle drivers doing the same thing.
I wouldn't say it is a massive issue. It is just one of those things, like the law on causing death by riding a cycle, where the law needs to be tidied up at some point.My point is,is there a massive issue requiring time and money spent on new laws? Im certainly not being beaten by cyclists in the 20mph zones in Edinburgh, when doing 20mph."In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
Impatient cyclists who feel that pedestrians who are simply walking along the pavement should jump out of their way...I jump onto pavements by me all the time as many around here are now joint usage for pedestrians and cyclists and if you want to see arrogance and abuse you should see the reaction I get when I announce that I am behind the pedestrians and about to pass them.
I've driven and ridden lorries, vans, cars, mopeds and cycles over my many years and there are idiots in all those vehicles but the biggest threat to the pedestrian is the pedestrian themselves, especially the ones with headphones in their ears and phones stuck in their faces.0 -
Again, there is no need for speedometers for bikes for there to be enforceable legislation on cycle speed limits. They already exist.Rosemary7391 wrote: »Just briefly - as discussed above, speedometers for bikes. And registration for enforcement purposes? That would put off a lot of folk.
There would also be no need for registration, just as there is no need for registration for enforcement action to be taken against cyclists who ignore restrictions imposed on them by other traffic signs (e.g. 'No Entry', 'One Way') and likewise there is no need for predestrians to be registered for enforcement action to be taken against them (e.g. for walking where prohibited such as on a motorway).
A lot of laws do make very little change, but walk in some areas of London and let me know if you still think it is a few folk whose cycling excesses need curbing. The problem is relatively small now, but it is a growing issue.Rosemary7391 wrote: »If that was all the law said we'd have very little change as a result.
All this for the few folk who can+do exceed 20mph in an urban setting?"In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards