Death by dangerous cycling offense proposed

[Jakob W]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/04/death-by-dangerous-cycling-offence-to-be-introduced-reports

Note the absence of a death by careless cycling offense (or does this suggest that, as with car drivers, the CPS will simply decline to charge?)

Oh well, it's not like there's going to be anything else taking up loads of parliamentary time in the near future...

[drossall]

I can't get very excited about this. Deaths in cycle-pedestrian collisions are mercifully rare, as the Guardian report acknowledges; I think the average is three a year, although that would include cyclists killed in such collisions, and the Guardian quotes only pedestrians. Logically, you'd think that the cyclist and the pedestrian would be at roughly equal risk.

What's more, it can hardly be the case that someone is demonstrably and sufficiently at fault to warrant prosecution in all of those. Last I heard, fourteen in every fifteen such collisions happened on the road, for example, so only one every five years on the pavement, where the cyclist is almost certain to have some or all of the fault.

It was an odd aspect of the Alliston case that a major factor was having only one working brake (the fixed wheel). As a driver, I'd expect to be prosecuted for having inadequate brakes, but I'm not sure whether death by dangerous driving or some other charge would result if there were a fatality. But then what other charge could be used? I do notice, subjectively, that there seem to be fewer bikes around these days with no front brake - I saw my first one for ages this week.

[mattc]

I do notice, subjectively, that there seem to be fewer bikes around these days with no front brake - I saw my first one for ages this week.

Probably loads more with dangerously faulty ones. But as bikes aren't inherently very dangerous to others, I shan't be worrying about this much - negligent drivers are way more significant on my radar, whether I'm on foot or awheel.

[Redlight]

It was an odd aspect of the Alliston case that a major factor was having only one working brake (the fixed wheel). As a driver, I'd expect to be prosecuted for having inadequate brakes, but I'm not sure whether death by dangerous driving or some other charge would result if there were a fatality.

ISTR in the case 12 or so years ago of the group of cyclists from north Wales mown down by a driver whose car had bald tyres, there was some astonishment at the fact that the CPS felt it could prosecute only for the negligence of having bald tyres rather than the consequence. It seems a more aggressive approach was taken in the Alliston case, given that (if I recall correctly) his only illegal act was to have removed the front brake.

[drossall]

Probably loads more with dangerously faulty ones. But as bikes aren't inherently very dangerous to others, I shan't be worrying about this much - negligent drivers are way more significant on my radar, whether I'm on foot or awheel.

Unhooked V-brakes in particular. Though I've not seen as many of those lately either. Entirely subjective of course, but I did wonder whether people were taking things a bit more seriously.

But I agree, far less risk to others than when driving is involved.

[PeteB99]

It was an odd aspect of the Alliston case that a major factor was having only one working brake (the fixed wheel). As a driver, I'd expect to be prosecuted for having inadequate brakes, but I'm not sure whether death by dangerous driving or some other charge would result if there were a fatality.

ISTR in the case 12 or so years ago of the group of cyclists from north Wales mown down by a driver whose car had bald tyres, there was some astonishment at the fact that the CPS felt it could prosecute only for the negligence of having bald tyres rather than the consequence. It seems a more aggressive approach was taken in the Alliston case, given that (if I recall correctly) his only illegal act was to have removed the front brake.

Part of the CPS thinking in the Rhyl CC case was that as the 'accident' had taken place on a stretch of road that was sheet black ice then the bald tyres were't a big factor. This disregards the fact that the cyclists were managing to stay upright and that the driver would have had plenty of warning of the state of the road and a chance to moderate his speed down to a controllable level. From what I could see from press pictures the three bald tyres were representative of the cars general state of maintenance.

[mrcharly-YHT]

I do notice, subjectively, that there seem to be fewer bikes around these days with no front brake - I saw my first one for ages this week.

I saw one on Sat. Deliveroo rider - rusty fixed gear, no brakes, slack chain. ffs

That Rhyll case was a travesty.

[benborp]

One of the issues with the current implementation of the causing death by dangerous driving legislation is that, through social conditioning, case law and personal prejudices we have obscured the fact that driving a car is directly comparable to any number of other activities that we instantly recognise as being intrinsically dangerous.

Transgress the regulations, guidelines or legislation governing firearms, lifting operations, plant safety or the storage of hazardous substances and someone unintentionally dies as a result? There's a more than good chance that the person/s responsible will face a manslaughter charge (unless your corporate structure is sufficiently effective). We all know that the RTA isn't applied with the same force, and perversely, that effective defence strategies for a serious driving charge are ones that would nail someone facing a manslaughter charge through negligence.
We also know that juries will indulge in perverse twists of logic to avoid convicting on a 'death by' charge. Even when the only difference between the original charge and the one of which the defendant was eventually convicted is whether someone was killed, juries will convict on the the careless or dangerous driving and acquit on the 'death by' alternative regardless of the evident deadness of the victim.

The only way that this proposed law can introduce parity is if it is implemented equally ineffectively. That's unlikely. Firstly, it's taken decades to reach the current levels of absurdity that required a review of the existing laws. We can't hope for the level of legislative sophistication required to seamlessly marry driving and cycling responsibilities from this bunch. Secondly, I have a suspicion that as a society our starting point for the perception of danger starts with screaming abdabs at the tens of joules of an un-helmeted toddler when it comes to cyclists and barely blinks an eye at the driver of an M6 chucking tens of thousands of the things about.

[grams]

My circle of friends includes a group of fixed riders, many of them brakeless, and there seems to have been no noticeable change in proportion since the case, despite some murmurings when it was in the news.

(I've never noticed any particular difference in their ability to stop or to ride safely, or I wouldn't ride with them)

[drossall]

Except if they break a chain, presumably

One of the purposes of having two independent brakes is to give protection against that.

[grams]

That doesn't seem to be a thing that happens.

[Greenbank]

Indeed.

Elsewhere (a local community forum) the natives are happy that something is finally being done about this, and genuinely thinking that this may have an effect on the general lawlessness of some cyclists.

As if changing the maximum sentence (from 2 years to 14 years) for killing someone is going to change anyone's behaviour. "Ooh, I think I'll ride like a twat today. Two years if I kill someone, I'll take that risk! Oh no, it's 14 years maximum now, I'll dial it down a bit."

[Cudzoziemiec]

It will make a difference to the statistics. If drossall's figure of 3 pedestrians a year killed by cyclists is correct (I'd have guessed it was far lower than that, but I would have been guessing), that will now become 3 cases of "death by dangerous cycling", likely regardless of the circumstances. That might become a stick to beat us with; never mind that it pales into insignificance beside the numbers killed by drivers.

[orienteer]

This would be totally unnecessary if the European concept of presumed liability was introduced in the UK.

[Kim]

Except if they break a chain, presumably

Breaking a chain tends to happen at low speed.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

That doesn't seem to be a thing that happens.

I broke a chain earlier this year.  It doesn't often happen - it's my 2nd.

Except if they break a chain, presumably

Breaking a chain tends to happen at low speed.

Was pulling away from the lights.  But of course very few people rely on chains as brakes.  I'd suggest doing so puts the same sort of strain on them.  My chain was fairly new, too.

[grams]

Was it 1/8" single speed chain on a bike with straight chainline?

(the argument isn't "chains never snap", it's "chain snapping while braking isn't frequent enough to be a significant risk to the rider")

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

Was it 1/8" single speed chain on a bike with straight chainline?

(the argument isn't "chains never snap", it's "chain snapping while braking isn't frequent enough to be a significant risk to the rider")

I'm not arguing about it.  It's easy enough to have brakes so there's no point in relying solely on a chain.   

(The risk in the notorious case was borne by the person whom the rider struck. )

Cars tend to have dual circuit braking systems these days because it was found that brakes can fail. 

[Kim]

Breaking a chain tends to happen at low speed.

Was pulling away from the lights.  But of course very few people rely on chains as brakes.  I'd suggest doing so puts the same sort of strain on them.  My chain was fairly new, too.

I'd suggest that the people using chains as brakes are also going to be putting huge strain on them by pulling away in a high gear, so chances are they're going to snap at that point.

Anyway, it's still stupid not to have brakes.

[TigaSefi]

Yet another dopey fucking useless lorry driver gets away with it cos of a jury that inherently biased towards their own selfish needs! The law is looking at this in the wrong way entirely.

[rogerzilla]

What if you hit a dopey ped who staggers into your path on a psyclepath?  Shared paths are no safer than pavements.

[Jaded]

Yet another dopey fucking useless lorry driver gets away with it cos of a jury that inherently biased towards their own selfish needs! The law is looking at this in the wrong way entirely.

He's pleaded guilty to careless driving. He's not got away with it.

[TigaSefi]

Yet another dopey fucking useless lorry driver gets away with it cos of a jury that inherently biased towards their own selfish needs! The law is looking at this in the wrong way entirely.

He's pleaded guilty to careless driving. He's not got away with it.

Nothing careless about it though. All the actions were dangerous.

[Jaded]

On that, I agree.

Juries don't tend to though. Sadly.

[Crumbling Nick]

Except if they break a chain, presumably

Or sprocket strips hub threads, most likely at low speed. Or chain derails - not normally at low speed (where's the smiley for faceplant ).
Others doubtless have unpleasant experiences to add to mine.

One of the purposes of having two independent brakes is to give protection against that.

Seems wise to me.