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
    • 12,100Posts
    • 24,632Thanks
    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 3
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 12th Aug 18, 10:00 PM
    • 8,641 Posts
    • 23,448 Thanks
    EachPenny
    There is no offence to commit.
    Originally posted by custardy
    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"
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 12th Aug 18, 10:08 PM
    • 8,641 Posts
    • 23,448 Thanks
    EachPenny
    ...We need to start demonising the idiot arrogant motorists not cyclists.
    Originally posted by Houbara
    That kind of attitude is one reason why some idiot motorists treat cyclists as fair game and deserving of being run off the road.

    Road safety is about all road users having respect for all other road users... you cannot achieve that if you believe some people need to be demonised.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • miriamac
    • By miriamac 12th Aug 18, 10:26 PM
    • 511 Posts
    • 1,142 Thanks
    miriamac
    How many people have actually read the document in the OP's link? Never mind any of the links within that link.
    • michaels
    • By michaels 12th Aug 18, 11:37 PM
    • 21,748 Posts
    • 101,215 Thanks
    michaels
    More widely we need to decide what to do about 'new transport devices' - electric bikes, Segway/hover board, electric scooters, skateboards etc. These can make a lot of sense for urban transport and are seeing wide adoption abroad but are legislated off both the roads and the pavements in the UK.
    Cool heads and compromise
    • custardy
    • By custardy 13th Aug 18, 7:27 AM
    • 34,142 Posts
    • 29,020 Thanks
    custardy
    I'm aware of that. I was responding to a post responding to Wild Rover's point about whether there should be an offence.
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    Not so simple. You would then need to add legislation of bikes to be fitted with speedometers I would assume?
    Would theses be mechanically driven or are you trusting bike computers?
    bikes already sold,is retrofitting a requirement?
    Again,how often do you see cyclists breaking the road speedlimit as a n issue?
    In Edinburgh (since it was the example used) the 20mph limit is barely enforced under existing laws and the Police have stated as much
    • custardy
    • By custardy 13th Aug 18, 8:06 AM
    • 34,142 Posts
    • 29,020 Thanks
    custardy
    How many people have actually read the document in the OP's link? Never mind any of the links within that link.
    Originally posted by miriamac
    Yes,interestingly the DFT chooses to use the name of Matt Briggs.
    His wife was killed by a cyclist who got an 18 month sentence.
    given historical sentencing for drivers,a fairly hefty sentence.
    • Rosemary7391
    • By Rosemary7391 13th Aug 18, 8:16 AM
    • 2,498 Posts
    • 4,256 Thanks
    Rosemary7391
    Even if bikes were going 30 mph in a 20 zone, I think the bike would do less damage than a car. Can't be bothered to do the calc but they can probably stop in a shorter distance too.
    Slinkies 2018 Challenge - 0/80lb lost
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 13th Aug 18, 9:03 AM
    • 8,641 Posts
    • 23,448 Thanks
    EachPenny
    Not so simple. You would then need to add legislation of bikes to be fitted with speedometers I would assume?
    Would theses be mechanically driven or are you trusting bike computers?
    bikes already sold,is retrofitting a requirement?
    Again,how often do you see cyclists breaking the road speedlimit as a n issue?
    In Edinburgh (since it was the example used) the 20mph limit is barely enforced under existing laws and the Police have stated as much
    Originally posted by custardy
    Already discussed in the thread.

    Councils already have powers to impose speed limits on cyclists without there being any legal requirement to have a speedometer on a cycle. As I said above, the onus is on the rider to assess their speed - whether they choose a mechanical speedometer, cycle computer or GPS/smartphone to assist them is their choice.

    A speedometer fitted to a car also still just a guide - your speedometer being inaccurate is not a defence against a speeding fine.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 13th Aug 18, 9:26 AM
    • 8,641 Posts
    • 23,448 Thanks
    EachPenny
    Even if bikes were going 30 mph in a 20 zone, I think the bike would do less damage than a car. Can't be bothered to do the calc but they can probably stop in a shorter distance too.
    Originally posted by Rosemary7391
    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.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • custardy
    • By custardy 13th Aug 18, 9:32 AM
    • 34,142 Posts
    • 29,020 Thanks
    custardy
    Already discussed in the thread.

    Councils already have powers to impose speed limits on cyclists without there being any legal requirement to have a speedometer on a cycle. As I said above, the onus is on the rider to assess their speed - whether they choose a mechanical speedometer, cycle computer or GPS/smartphone to assist them is their choice.

    A speedometer fitted to a car also still just a guide - your speedometer being inaccurate is not a defence against a speeding fine.
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    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?
    Given you will be using the car speedo as a 'guide' (for the poster who raised it) the cyclist maybe using a more accurate speedo.
    • Rosemary7391
    • By Rosemary7391 13th Aug 18, 9:38 AM
    • 2,498 Posts
    • 4,256 Thanks
    Rosemary7391
    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? And the offset in reducing cycling rates, which affects public health?
    Slinkies 2018 Challenge - 0/80lb lost
    • custardy
    • By custardy 13th Aug 18, 9:43 AM
    • 34,142 Posts
    • 29,020 Thanks
    custardy
    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.
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    20mph would suggest little or no breaking for most cyclists average speed
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 13th Aug 18, 9:48 AM
    • 8,641 Posts
    • 23,448 Thanks
    EachPenny
    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?
    Originally posted by custardy
    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?
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • custardy
    • By custardy 13th Aug 18, 9:53 AM
    • 34,142 Posts
    • 29,020 Thanks
    custardy
    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?
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    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.
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 13th Aug 18, 9:59 AM
    • 8,641 Posts
    • 23,448 Thanks
    EachPenny
    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?
    Originally posted by Rosemary7391
    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.

    And the offset in reducing cycling rates, which affects public health?
    Originally posted by Rosemary7391
    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.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • custardy
    • By custardy 13th Aug 18, 10:07 AM
    • 34,142 Posts
    • 29,020 Thanks
    custardy
    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.
    • spadoosh
    • By spadoosh 13th Aug 18, 10:08 AM
    • 5,894 Posts
    • 8,146 Thanks
    spadoosh
    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.
    Don't be angry!
    • Rosemary7391
    • By Rosemary7391 13th Aug 18, 10:12 AM
    • 2,498 Posts
    • 4,256 Thanks
    Rosemary7391
    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.
    Originally posted by EachPenny

    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?
    Slinkies 2018 Challenge - 0/80lb lost
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 13th Aug 18, 10:15 AM
    • 8,641 Posts
    • 23,448 Thanks
    EachPenny
    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?
    Originally posted by custardy
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Originally posted by custardy
    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.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • prowla
    • By prowla 13th Aug 18, 10:22 AM
    • 10,107 Posts
    • 8,336 Thanks
    prowla
    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.
    Originally posted by DCodd
    Impatient cyclists who feel that pedestrians who are simply walking along the pavement should jump out of their way...
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

269Posts Today

1,379Users online

Martin's Twitter