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
    • 11,885Posts
    • 23,934Thanks
    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 2
    • boliston
    • By boliston 12th Aug 18, 11:12 AM
    • 2,703 Posts
    • 2,257 Thanks
    boliston
    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
    Originally posted by Wild_Rover
    As bicycles don't normally have a speedometer it would be a difficult law to enforce
    • prowla
    • By prowla 12th Aug 18, 12:11 PM
    • 9,992 Posts
    • 8,157 Thanks
    prowla
    All that's needed is to make the general road vehicle laws apply to all road users on wheels.


    It would solve a lot of issues in one go.



    We don't need silly little specific laws to catch edge cases.
    • HornetSaver
    • By HornetSaver 12th Aug 18, 1:30 PM
    • 2,657 Posts
    • 4,369 Thanks
    HornetSaver
    Te issue is there is currently no law which covers the situation where someone is killed by a cyclist driving dangerously.
    Originally posted by daveyjp

    There are substandard laws with substandard sentences which can be used. Personally I'd rather we focus on correctly and fully enforcing existing road laws on the hundreds of thousands of downright maniac car drivers (and a good few million more who routinely drive dangerously without quite falling into that category), rather than spend significant time on ensuring two or three people per year are convicted of the correctly titled offence.
    I'm standing by my pre-referendum prediction: "Brexit will lead to a recession"

    forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=70662330
    • Rosemary7391
    • By Rosemary7391 12th Aug 18, 1:41 PM
    • 2,019 Posts
    • 3,484 Thanks
    Rosemary7391
    There are substandard laws with substandard sentences which can be used. Personally I'd rather we focus on correctly and fully enforcing existing road laws on the hundreds of thousands of downright maniac car drivers (and a good few million more who routinely drive dangerously without quite falling into that category), rather than spend significant time on ensuring two or three people per year are convicted of the correctly titled offence.
    Originally posted by HornetSaver

    I think you mean that there is the correctly titled offence available to charge them with if appropriate. Unless I missed it, those statistics referred to pedestrians killed in accidents with cyclists - not the number of cases where the cyclist would've been found guilty of any offence?
    Slinkies 2018 Challenge - 0/80lb lost
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 12th Aug 18, 1:47 PM
    • 6,101 Posts
    • 16,037 Thanks
    EachPenny
    As bicycles don't normally have a speedometer it would be a difficult law to enforce
    Originally posted by boliston
    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.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 12th Aug 18, 2:00 PM
    • 6,101 Posts
    • 16,037 Thanks
    EachPenny
    There are substandard laws with substandard sentences which can be used. Personally I'd rather we focus on correctly and fully enforcing existing road laws on the hundreds of thousands of downright maniac car drivers (and a good few million more who routinely drive dangerously without quite falling into that category), rather than spend significant time on ensuring two or three people per year are convicted of the correctly titled offence.
    Originally posted by HornetSaver
    Applying the same logic then shouldn't the proposed 'upskirting' law be put on hold until every rapist is caught and prosecuted?

    The fact the law in one area is substandard and difficult to enforce should preclude new laws being created to make it easier to enforce/prosecute/convict in another area (or subset).

    The problem with fully enforcing traffic law is that the authorities responsible for setting the rules would first have to do an enormous amount of work to make the rules consistent and enforceable with public support. Experience shows that strict enforcement of motoring law alientates the public and leads to a loss of public support for other police (and local authority) activities.

    Many existing speed limits are set far too low for the conditions applying to that road - in many cases this has happened through laziness by the responsible authority, or cost-cutting. So long as a 'relaxed' approach is adopted to enforcement the majority of people won't complain, but that will change if 'full' enforcement is adopted.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 12th Aug 18, 2:11 PM
    • 6,101 Posts
    • 16,037 Thanks
    EachPenny
    How would that work when cyclists usually have no means of measuring their instantaneous speed?
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    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 the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • HornetSaver
    • By HornetSaver 12th Aug 18, 2:14 PM
    • 2,657 Posts
    • 4,369 Thanks
    HornetSaver
    I think you mean that there is the correctly titled offence available to charge them with if appropriate. Unless I missed it, those statistics referred to pedestrians killed in accidents with cyclists - not the number of cases where the cyclist would've been found guilty of any offence?
    Originally posted by Rosemary7391

    When I discovered the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists, I felt no need to attempt to whittle the figure down further to strengthen my argument.
    I'm standing by my pre-referendum prediction: "Brexit will lead to a recession"

    forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=70662330
    • Rosemary7391
    • By Rosemary7391 12th Aug 18, 2:28 PM
    • 2,019 Posts
    • 3,484 Thanks
    Rosemary7391
    When I discovered the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists, I felt no need to attempt to whittle the figure down further to strengthen my argument.
    Originally posted by HornetSaver



    That's fair!
    Slinkies 2018 Challenge - 0/80lb lost
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 12th Aug 18, 2:36 PM
    • 6,101 Posts
    • 16,037 Thanks
    EachPenny
    When I discovered the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists, I felt no need to attempt to whittle the figure down further to strengthen my argument.
    Originally posted by HornetSaver
    Do you consider the life of a pedestrian killed by a cyclist to be worth less than the life of a cyclist killed by a motor vehicle driver?

    I assume not, in which case, why should the pedestrian not benefit from the same legal consideration the cyclist does?
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • Rosemary7391
    • By Rosemary7391 12th Aug 18, 3:14 PM
    • 2,019 Posts
    • 3,484 Thanks
    Rosemary7391
    Do you consider the life of a pedestrian killed by a cyclist to be worth less than the life of a cyclist killed by a motor vehicle driver?

    I assume not, in which case, why should the pedestrian not benefit from the same legal consideration the cyclist does?
    Originally posted by EachPenny

    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.
    Slinkies 2018 Challenge - 0/80lb lost
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 12th Aug 18, 3:35 PM
    • 6,101 Posts
    • 16,037 Thanks
    EachPenny
    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.
    Originally posted by Rosemary7391
    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
    • By Cornucopia 12th Aug 18, 4:19 PM
    • 10,468 Posts
    • 10,625 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    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
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    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.
    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
    • Rotor
    • By Rotor 12th Aug 18, 6:35 PM
    • 931 Posts
    • 1,048 Thanks
    Rotor
    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.
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    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.
    Soft Brexit - All the regulation, all the immigration, all the budget contribution but no influence , no vote and no veto. Madness
    • prowla
    • By prowla 12th Aug 18, 7:13 PM
    • 9,992 Posts
    • 8,157 Thanks
    prowla
    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.
    Originally posted by Rotor
    There are no emissions from non-motorised vehicles.


    The road user on wheels is a term used in the HC.
    • Tallaght
    • By Tallaght 12th Aug 18, 7:45 PM
    • 623 Posts
    • 509 Thanks
    Tallaght
    There is still a lot of cyclists cycling on pavements everywhere.They should have public liability insurance.
    • Houbara
    • By Houbara 12th Aug 18, 7:51 PM
    • 3,703 Posts
    • 2,446 Thanks
    Houbara
    I would really like to know how many people are killed by cyclists in a year?
    Originally posted by ariba10
    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
    Last edited by Houbara; 12-08-2018 at 8:06 PM.
    • custardy
    • By custardy 12th Aug 18, 8:14 PM
    • 33,870 Posts
    • 28,737 Thanks
    custardy
    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
    Originally posted by Wild_Rover
    Is that the same cyclists drivers so often malign for holding them up for going so slowly?
    • custardy
    • By custardy 12th Aug 18, 8:18 PM
    • 33,870 Posts
    • 28,737 Thanks
    custardy
    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.
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    There is no offence to commit.
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 12th Aug 18, 9:58 PM
    • 6,101 Posts
    • 16,037 Thanks
    EachPenny
    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.
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    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"
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

1,111Posts Today

7,591Users 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