Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • worldtraveller
    • By worldtraveller 12th Aug 18, 6:08 AM
    • 11,878Posts
    • 23,915Thanks
    worldtraveller
    'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
    • #1
    • 12th Aug 18, 6:08 AM
    'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered 12th Aug 18 at 6:08 AM
    Cyclists who kill pedestrians could face charges of "death by dangerous cycling" or "death by careless cycling", under government proposals.

    The Department for Transport has launched a 12-week consultation looking at whether new offences should be introduced for dangerous cyclists.

    BBC News

    Department For Transport - New plans to update road safety laws to protect cyclists and pedestrians
    Last edited by worldtraveller; 12-08-2018 at 6:10 AM.
    There is a pleasure in the pathless woods, There is a rapture on the lonely shore, There is society, where none intrudes, By the deep sea, and music in its roar: I love not man the less, but Nature more...
Page 1
    • HornetSaver
    • By HornetSaver 12th Aug 18, 7:21 AM
    • 2,652 Posts
    • 4,351 Thanks
    HornetSaver
    • #2
    • 12th Aug 18, 7:21 AM
    • #2
    • 12th Aug 18, 7:21 AM
    We have one of the best systems for tracking down a vehicle and its driver in the world, given the CCTV, ANPR and databases available to us. Yet our ability to deter drivers from endangering life - and meaningfully punish those that do - is pretty much nil.



    In that context, why bother introducing new laws on cyclists?
    I'm standing by my pre-referendum prediction: "Brexit will lead to a recession"

    forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=70662330
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 12th Aug 18, 7:27 AM
    • 10,824 Posts
    • 19,657 Thanks
    Sleazy
    • #3
    • 12th Aug 18, 7:27 AM
    • #3
    • 12th Aug 18, 7:27 AM
    Maybe the new law will also include the mobility scooter maniacs who seem to think that pavements are a racetrack that they have sole use of.

    My apologies if this is already covered under existing legislation.

    Ultimus Romanorum
    Descendit Sed Ex
    • PasturesNew
    • By PasturesNew 12th Aug 18, 7:30 AM
    • 63,575 Posts
    • 372,322 Thanks
    PasturesNew
    • #4
    • 12th Aug 18, 7:30 AM
    • #4
    • 12th Aug 18, 7:30 AM
    I find it increasingly nonsensical that the powers that be put more and more laws in place for "low hanging fruit", yet completely seem to ignore bigger threats.... instead of dreaming up new death sentences for wanton knife crimes and (increasingly) retaliation arsons in turf wars ... they spend their time pontificating about "generally pretty harmless" blokes on the odd bicycle.
    • HornetSaver
    • By HornetSaver 12th Aug 18, 7:39 AM
    • 2,652 Posts
    • 4,351 Thanks
    HornetSaver
    • #5
    • 12th Aug 18, 7:39 AM
    • #5
    • 12th Aug 18, 7:39 AM
    I find it increasingly nonsensical that the powers that be put more and more laws in place for "low hanging fruit", yet completely seem to ignore bigger threats.... instead of dreaming up new death sentences for wanton knife crimes and (increasingly) retaliation arsons in turf wars ... they spend their time pontificating about "generally pretty harmless" blokes on the odd bicycle.
    Originally posted by PasturesNew

    I agree with this to a point.

    Plenty of existing laws are a cash cow which would lead to an improvment in day-to-day life. Fine people for littering. Make sure people and the state make a profit on being victims of criminal damage. Squeeze unlawful drivers until the pips squeak - the fifteen or so of us who abide by the rules of the road will be much better off with lower insurance premiums due to the number of collisions, and even if not caught up in one, see far less time and fuel wasted sitting in traffic jams caused by entirely avoidable incidents.

    Enforce the existing ones properly and you'll find that precious few new ones are necessary.
    I'm standing by my pre-referendum prediction: "Brexit will lead to a recession"

    forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=70662330
    • Mrs Arcanum
    • By Mrs Arcanum 12th Aug 18, 7:54 AM
    • 17,945 Posts
    • 37,362 Thanks
    Mrs Arcanum
    • #6
    • 12th Aug 18, 7:54 AM
    • #6
    • 12th Aug 18, 7:54 AM
    Seems to me, that the most frequent sufferers of death by dangerous cycling, are the cyclist themselves.
    “We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they’re elected. Don't you?" "Why?” “It saves time.” - Terry Pratchett, The Last Continent.
    • discat11
    • By discat11 12th Aug 18, 8:13 AM
    • 365 Posts
    • 476 Thanks
    discat11
    • #7
    • 12th Aug 18, 8:13 AM
    • #7
    • 12th Aug 18, 8:13 AM
    Seems to me, that the most frequent sufferers of death by dangerous cycling, are the cyclist themselves.
    Originally posted by Mrs Arcanum
    As in motorcycling accidents also -or, more accurately, any accident where a motorcycle is involved.

    I was always taught that the more vulnerable you are (on a scale of pedestrian upwards) the more careful you have to be to not only be aware of your own mistakes but also every other road users, since you'll be the one who suffers the most statistically in the event of an accident.
    • Pennywise
    • By Pennywise 12th Aug 18, 8:40 AM
    • 10,406 Posts
    • 19,410 Thanks
    Pennywise
    • #8
    • 12th Aug 18, 8:40 AM
    • #8
    • 12th Aug 18, 8:40 AM
    Enforce the existing ones properly and you'll find that precious few new ones are necessary.
    Originally posted by HornetSaver
    Fully agree. What is needed is proper enforcement of the laws we already have before even more are added.
    • daveyjp
    • By daveyjp 12th Aug 18, 8:47 AM
    • 7,621 Posts
    • 6,178 Thanks
    daveyjp
    • #9
    • 12th Aug 18, 8:47 AM
    • #9
    • 12th Aug 18, 8:47 AM
    Fully agree. What is needed is proper enforcement of the laws we already have before even more are added.
    Originally posted by Pennywise
    Te issue is there is currently no law which covers the situation where someone is killed by a cyclist driving dangerously.
    • unforeseen
    • By unforeseen 12th Aug 18, 9:06 AM
    • 2,850 Posts
    • 3,667 Thanks
    unforeseen
    Wouldn't normal manslaughter laws cover it? You have caused a death by your negligence/recklessness so it's manslaughter.

    Having a separate law is just creating a subset of an existing law to make statistics easier.
    Last edited by unforeseen; 12-08-2018 at 9:08 AM. Reason: Sp
    • ariba10
    • By ariba10 12th Aug 18, 9:29 AM
    • 5,200 Posts
    • 5,682 Thanks
    ariba10
    I would really like to know how many people are killed by cyclists in a year?
    I used to be indecisive but now I am not sure.
    • maisie cat
    • By maisie cat 12th Aug 18, 9:38 AM
    • 499 Posts
    • 589 Thanks
    maisie cat
    I would really like to know how many people are killed by cyclists in a year?
    Originally posted by ariba10
    In 2016 3 people were killed by cyclists and another 100 or so seriously injured. I have had a couple of near misses, every time it has been a pedestrian stepping out onto the road and simply not looking/seeing. To make a case stick would involve proving negligence and that the pedestrian had not been negligent. It does seem a waste of current limited law making time, perhaps it's an emotive one and the politicians are doing it for political gain?
    • daveyjp
    • By daveyjp 12th Aug 18, 9:39 AM
    • 7,621 Posts
    • 6,178 Thanks
    daveyjp
    Wouldn't normal manslaughter laws cover it? You have caused a death by your negligence/recklessness so it's manslaughter.

    Having a separate law is just creating a subset of an existing law to make statistics easier.
    Originally posted by unforeseen
    No, otherwise it would have been used in the case which is leading to this review.

    Manslaughter would also be used for any death by road vehicle, it isn't.
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 12th Aug 18, 10:35 AM
    • 10,464 Posts
    • 10,611 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    London has a large number of active cyclists. Some of this cycling is somewhat lawless or unruly, and the approach up to now has been for the authorities to be generally tolerant of this in the name of supporting a worthy activity.

    Perhaps this review is a sign that that tolerance is coming to end?
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 12th Aug 18, 10:44 AM
    • 6,092 Posts
    • 15,993 Thanks
    EachPenny
    ... they spend their time pontificating about "generally pretty harmless" blokes on the odd bicycle.
    Originally posted by PasturesNew
    Blokes on the odd bicycle isn't where this law is targeted, it is addressing the lack of existing law covering people who cycle in a particularly dangerous way and cause death as a result.
    Wouldn't normal manslaughter laws cover it? You have caused a death by your negligence/recklessness so it's manslaughter.

    Having a separate law is just creating a subset of an existing law to make statistics easier.
    Originally posted by unforeseen
    The same might be said of causing death by negligent/reckless driving of a car/lorry/bus/motorcycle, but society has decided that specific laws are justified in those circumstances, so why should cyclists be exempt?

    The important statistics are gathered using police records of accidents reported to them (STATS19). Ease of gathering statistics on the number of succesful convictions for manslaughter related offences is not important enough to justify changing the law.
    I would really like to know how many people are killed by cyclists in a year?
    Originally posted by ariba10
    Too many (even if it was only one).
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 12th Aug 18, 10:53 AM
    • 6,092 Posts
    • 15,993 Thanks
    EachPenny
    London has a large number of active cyclists. Some of this cycling is somewhat lawless or unruly, and the approach up to now has been for the authorities to be generally tolerant of this in the name of supporting a worthy activity.

    Perhaps this review is a sign that that tolerance is coming to end?
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    For policy and political reasons London has had something of a blind spot when it comes to cyclists being responsible and not breaking the law. The theory is that encouraging cycling is so important that nothing negative should be said or done in relation to cycling.

    The flaw in that plan is that at some point lawless and unruly cycling has the effect of putting other people off cycling, or more importantly discouraging walking, so it was only a matter of time before 'critical mass' meant that tougher laws on cycling were required.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 12th Aug 18, 10:54 AM
    • 10,464 Posts
    • 10,611 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    Wouldn't normal manslaughter laws cover it? You have caused a death by your negligence/recklessness so it's manslaughter.
    Originally posted by unforeseen
    I suspect that at the margins, the Manslaughter laws might prove incapable of addressing cases where the dynamics of the propulsion of the cycle were a major consideration.

    A detailed comparison of the two pieces of legislation would no doubt reveal the thinking.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 12th Aug 18, 10:58 AM
    • 10,464 Posts
    • 10,611 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    For policy and political reasons London has had something of a blind spot when it comes to cyclists being responsible and not breaking the law. The theory is that encouraging cycling is so important that nothing negative should be said or done in relation to cycling.

    The flaw in that plan is that at some point lawless and unruly cycling has the effect of putting other people off cycling, or more importantly discouraging walking, so it was only a matter of time before 'critical mass' meant that tougher laws on cycling were required.
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    I think I might even go further than that - whilst it was a case of complaints mainly from Drivers, the authorities were prepared to dismiss that.

    The media has also been on the case of cyclist vs. HGV incidents. I suggested in a previous thread that a speedy cyclist travelling at up to 30mph may have little or no chance when an HGV turns left immediately in front of them because the distance to impact is already smaller than the cyclist's stopping distance. (The thinking distances at 20mph and 30mph are 6 and 9 metres respectively, and braking might add 25-100% to that depending on road conditions and slope).

    The blame for such an incident will probably lie with the HGV driver, though that may not be much consolation depending on the outcome.
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 12-08-2018 at 11:05 AM.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • Wild_Rover
    • By Wild_Rover 12th Aug 18, 11:01 AM
    • 5,524 Posts
    • 18,374 Thanks
    Wild_Rover
    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
    Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire
    Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who had to drown His own? RG. Ingersol
    I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously. D Adams
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 12th Aug 18, 11:06 AM
    • 10,464 Posts
    • 10,611 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    Especially in 20 mph zones, SHOULD the same speed limits apply to cyclists as apply to everyone else?
    Originally posted by Wild_Rover
    How would that work when cyclists usually have no means of measuring their instantaneous speed?

    I think you could possibly have guidance or maybe bye-laws based on painting speed measurement lines on the road surface, but making it an offence of the same seriousness as speeding in a car would be difficult (not that such speeding is properly enforced, anyway).

    A cycle travelling at 20mph would cover around 45m in 5 seconds. Therefore lines painted on the road at 45m intervals could be used to roughly estimate speed by counting off 5 seconds from one to the next.

    Alternatively, existing regularly-spaced road features such as lane markings or street lights could be used for the purpose by simply posting the relevant time interval on a sign. e.g. if streetlamps are 90m apart, then a cyclist would be travelling at more than 20mph if they covered the distance between them in less than 10 seconds.
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 12-08-2018 at 11:30 AM.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,474Posts Today

8,517Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ta ta... for now. This August, as I try and do every few yrs, I'm lucky enough to be taking a sabbatical. No work,? https://t.co/Xx4R3eLhFG

  • RT @lethalbrignull: @MartinSLewis I've been sitting here for a good while trying to decide my answer to this, feeling grateful for living i?

  • Early days but currently it's exactly 50 50 in liberality v democracy, with younger people more liberal, older more? https://t.co/YwJr4izuIj

  • Follow Martin