Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: Duckfoot1606 on 12 August, 2018, 06:04:22 am
-
I see this has appeared in the news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45154708
Any ideas why we dont just use 'manslaughter' rather than 'causing death by dangerous driving, riding' etc when a road user kills another road user?.
Personally im all for people being held accountable for their actions on the road, regardless of their chosen mode of transport, fewer laws but properly applied.
A
-
Because rich tourists might be less inclined to visit if ...
-
Laws like that will result in cycling becoming more dangerous. The publicity around it results in cyclists being seen as a danger to others and therefore something to be got rid of, so aggression from drivers will be increased by it. There will be more policing laws designed for cars, worse infrastructure as councils don't want to spend money on facilities used by cyclists who are seen a criminals. Reducing cycling numbers will make cycling more dangerous, as has happened in places with mandatory helmet laws.
The primary aim of the law won't work. There are already laws about causing death by dangerous driving, but no-one driving ever does anything that they think will cause a crash or they wouldn't do it, so it non-crashing behaviour that is dangerous has to be legislated against. Killing someone with while cycling is going to hurt the cyclist, so everyone does their best to avoid it anyhow.
The article says Department for Transport figures for 2016 show that 448 pedestrians were killed on Britain's roads, but only three cases involved bicycles.
Apart from the Charlie Alison / Kim Briggs case, there has been little publicity for anyone killed by a cyclist recently, so does a case "involving bicycles" also include cases where a pedestrian was hit by a motor vehicle and a bicycle was also there, like in the Uber crash?
-
Any ideas why we dont just use 'manslaughter' rather than 'causing death by dangerous driving, riding' etc when a road user kills another road user?.
A not-so-subconscious desire to stigmatize cyclists?
Lots of nuances: https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-is-the-sentence-for-manslaughter-how-many-years-could-you-face-in-prison/
-
I think that taking a step back and looking at the reasons for this would be beneficial.
This is the "work" of a gentleman whose wife was killed by a cyclist (enough discussion elsewhere about the actual incident)
Apparently he was told that there was no law under which the cyclist could be prosecuted and after consultation, that the best they could do was to charge him with "wanton and furious cycling" under section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving):
"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."
The sentence is also out of line with a motorist committing the same offence.
I can sympathise with him and see why if it was my wife then I would be keen to see a structured current law that enabled an appropriate prosecution.
Having said that the law has been used against motorists where the offence has been outside the limits of normal prosecution (private land etc)
The consultation document is here (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/new-cycling-offences-causing-death-or-serious-injury-when-cycling/cycling-and-walking-investment-strategy-safety-review-proposals-for-new-cycling-offences)
-
I think that taking a step back and looking at the reasons for this would be beneficial.
This is the "work" of a gentleman whose wife was killed by a cyclist (enough discussion elsewhere about the actual incident)
Apparently he was told that there was no law under which the cyclist could be prosecuted and after consultation, that the best they could do was to charge him with "wanton and furious cycling" under section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving):
"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."
The sentence is also out of line with a motorist committing the same offence.
I can sympathise with him and see why if it was my wife then I would be keen to see a structured current law that enabled an appropriate prosecution.
Having said that the law has been used against motorists where the offence has been outside the limits of normal prosecution (private land etc)
The consultation document is here (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/new-cycling-offences-causing-death-or-serious-injury-when-cycling/cycling-and-walking-investment-strategy-safety-review-proposals-for-new-cycling-offences)
The statistics are: 2016, 3 pedestrians killed in accidents with cyclists but note that blame was not assigned specifically to the cyclists involved, last year 9 people died from being hit by mobility scooters, plus how many road users have been injured by the actions of pedestrians? If there is a new law specifically for cyclists it seems only logical that all other users of highways and footways should be treated the same way.
-
There's something rather absent in the consultation....
Sure enough at the foot of the consultation is a link to the consultation principles,
Give enough information to ensure that those consulted understand the issues and can give informed responses.
There's no statistics given relating to most of the questions (and where they are given they are flawed). How can I give an informed response as to, for example, whether fines for drunk cycling are failing without knowing a) how often fines are issued and b) how often the cyclist involved in a death by cycling incident were drunk?
The whole thing is a Daily Mail side bar poll.
-
This is the "work" of a gentleman whose wife was killed by a cyclist (enough discussion elsewhere about the actual incident)
...
I can sympathise with him and see why if it was my wife then I would be keen to see a structured current law that enabled an appropriate prosecution.
Whilst I can sympathise his loss it was ultimately his wives negligence that resulted in the collision causing her death.
Though my opinion may be biased given that I've recently been involved in a cyclist on pedestrian collision which was caused by a pedestrians negligence. A collision we were both lucky to walk away from.
Had I died as a result would he have been charged with manslaughter or death by dangerous walking?
-
The statistics are: 2016, 3 pedestrians killed in accidents with cyclists but note that blame was not assigned specifically to the cyclists involved, last year 9 people died from being hit by mobility scooters, plus how many road users have been injured by the actions of pedestrians? If there is a new law specifically for cyclists it seems only logical that all other users of highways and footways should be treated the same way.
Nobody I have heard of objects to mobility scooters but there's a large lobby/community/herd/mob who are enraged by the very existence of cyclists, so while three deaths caused by or involving cyclists are grist to the anti-cyclist mill, mobility scooters could kill ten times as many and no-one would bat an eyelid.
-
...
Though my opinion may be biased given that I've recently been involved in a cyclist on pedestrian collision which was caused by a pedestrians negligence. A collision we were both lucky to walk away from.
Had I died as a result would he have been charged with manslaughter or death by dangerous walking?
Neither, as killing a cyclist is only ever an accident.
-
This is bollocks; it was a knee jerk reaction to the knob-end who killed a woman, because furious cycling only carries a 2 year maximum sentence and those braying for blood wanted a longer sentence;
in the end he got less than 2 years, move on
-
In reply to the original question: the offence of causing death by dangerous driving was brought in because juries were reluctant to convict manslaughter charges. The offence of causing death by careless driving was brought in because of juries’ reluctance to convict death by dangerous driving.
There is a good explanation of this on the cycling silk blog from last year, following the infamous case mentioned above.
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com
-
It's a good reason not to use cyclepaths, since that's where you're most likely to hit a pedestrian. Or is that off-road and not covered by the proposed law?
-
This is the "work" of a gentleman whose wife was killed by a cyclist (enough discussion elsewhere about the actual incident)
...
I can sympathise with him and see why if it was my wife then I would be keen to see a structured current law that enabled an appropriate prosecution.
Whilst I can sympathise his loss it was ultimately his wives negligence that resulted in the collision causing her death.
Though my opinion may be biased given that I've recently been involved in a cyclist on pedestrian collision which was caused by a pedestrians negligence. A collision we were both lucky to walk away from.
Had I died as a result would he have been charged with manslaughter or death by dangerous walking?
Referring back to the case, there were complicating factors, mostly summed up by the fact that he was twat who rather than slowed down, attempted a manoeuvre that led to the woman's death. Pedestrians step out into the road, I think it's my responsibility as a cyclist to be in a position to avoid them even if that inconveniences me. It would be nice if drivers would adopt the same philosophy.
I don't blame the husband for chasing this, of course (though it would be nice if he'd put his efforts into road safety in general), but the chap got a significant sentence for his crime, disproportionate considering that if he'd hit her in car he'd probably not have even been prosecuted. Probably, ha. He'd just have to claim he didn't see her and it would be accepted. Another sad accident.
The problem with consultations is that they're really just platforms for people to document their particular prejudices rather than soliciting evidence and expertise to base decisions and policy on.
Of course, they're investing time and effort in something that will rarely if ever be used, and does nothing to improve road safety. Of course, it doesn't antagonise drivers – that poor entitled majority – which is probably the point, because if they really cared about road safety, well, they'd have to, wouldn't they?
-
It's a good reason not to use cyclepaths, since that's where you're most likely to hit a pedestrian. Or is that off-road and not covered by the proposed law?
Believe it or not, the carriage way, the footway (if parallel to the carriage way and within 14 yards of the carriage way), and the cycle way, are all considered the same road. So if you have a large road with a carriage way, a cycle lane, and a footway, and it has a smaller road coming in from the left, and the car in the carriage way wants to turn left, the cyclist in the cycle lane, and the pedestrian on the footway have right of way, and can walk or cycle straight across the smaller road, and the car turning left, plus any cars on the smaller road have to give way. This is why it's utter madness that you get many cycle lanes where you have to give way at every T junction, rather than the continuous cycle way that you get here in the civilised world.
It is also worth noting that the UK highway code explicitly says that if you are doing more than 17mph, you should consider using the carriage way instead on safety grounds. UK cycle lanes and cycle paths are non compulsory, unlike much of the continent (Germany being a curious exception of dubious gray areas, resulting in much shouty motorists).
Referring back to the case, there were complicating factors, mostly summed up by the fact that he was twat who rather than slowed down, attempted a manoeuvre that led to the woman's death. Pedestrians step out into the road, I think it's my responsibility as a cyclist to be in a position to avoid them even if that inconveniences me. It would be nice if drivers would adopt the same philosophy.
This is one of the arguments in favour of adopting primary position rather than hugging the gutter. It gives you more space to maneuver.
As a cyclist (and a motorist) is is your duty to be aware of your surroundings and read the road ahead, you need to be able to look ahead and make the judgement, what if that kid runs out after their ball, what if that pedestrian wants to cross, etc... This is why many advise you cover your brake levers in built up areas. It's why on street parking is the devils work (too many places for hidden small people to run from). This is why the theory test has the hazard perception test. It's also why most drivers drive way to fast for the conditions...
For both cyclists and motorists brakes have improved greatly, and for many with fully functioning brakes you can stop very very very fast. But while your brakes have improved, reaction time goes up with age, which can in many cases off set the technological improvements. Some car manufacturers have tried to find solutions to this with auto braking functions. But I wouldn't rely solely on them.
I don't blame the husband for chasing this, of course (though it would be nice if he'd put his efforts into road safety in general), but the chap got a significant sentence for his crime, disproportionate considering that if he'd hit her in car he'd probably not have even been prosecuted. Probably, ha. He'd just have to claim he didn't see her and it would be accepted. Another sad accident.
The nasty party^W^W tories put out an advert on twitter that they were doing a consultation on cracking down on dangerous cyclists, saying they wanted to bring it in line with motorists. This was widely greated by cycling twitter as a good thing, as it would reduce the possible sentence for all cyclists... I don't think that was the tories aim.
The problem with consultations is that they're really just platforms for people to document their particular prejudices rather than soliciting evidence and expertise to base decisions and policy on.
Agreed. See the CS9 and CS11 consultations for text book examples of this.
Of course, they're investing time and effort in something that will rarely if ever be used, and does nothing to improve road safety. Of course, it doesn't antagonise drivers – that poor entitled majority – which is probably the point, because if they really cared about road safety, well, they'd have to, wouldn't they?
If they cared about road safety they would go for the simple acts of:
a) change the default liability in the case of an accident
b) teach vulnerable road user awareness (including cyclists), in the driving education process
c) Teach The dutch reach door opening setup.
d) Fund a big advertising campaign about how to over take cyclists, aka the education element of Op close pass.
J
-
QG: does your first para need a "here in the Netherlands" added somewhere to clarify it for us UK readers? I may be wrong ...
[agree with most of your post otherwise :thumbsup: ]
-
QG: does your first para need a "here in the Netherlands" added somewhere to clarify it for us UK readers? I may be wrong ...
[agree with most of your post otherwise :thumbsup: ]
No, that is the status of UK law. Dutch law also works the same, tho I think the 14m thing may not apply here.
J
-
QG: does your first para need a "here in the Netherlands" added somewhere to clarify it for us UK readers? I may be wrong ...
[agree with most of your post otherwise :thumbsup: ]
No, that is the status of UK law. Dutch law also works the same, tho I think the 14m thing may not apply here.
J
You're right about the definition of road but not priority (right of way strictly means something rather different).
-
You're right about the definition of road but not priority (right of way strictly means something rather different).
You sure?
HC 170:
"watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"
Tho you am right about getting the term priority and right of way wrong.
J
-
That one starts "you should". It's advice. Which unfortunately almost everyone ignores. If there were a law to back it up, it would start "you must." Because UK, unlike some countries (but I've no idea whether NL is one of them), has no overarching priority law such as "give way to the right," priority at each junction is situational. So if your cycle lane has give way markings at the junction with a side road, the side road has priority. Which is pretty shit, but there you go.
-
And of course pedestrians who have yet to set foot on the road have no priority.
-
That one starts "you should". It's advice. Which unfortunately almost everyone ignores. If there were a law to back it up, it would start "you must." Because UK, unlike some countries (but I've no idea whether NL is one of them), has no overarching priority law such as "give way to the right," priority at each junction is situational. So if your cycle lane has give way markings at the junction with a side road, the side road has priority. Which is pretty shit, but there you go.
Ah, my bad.
NL is one of those countries.
The design of a cycle lane/path coming to a side road and having give way markings wouldn't meet the design standards for .nl. It really shouldn't be allowed in .uk. The whole having to stop every 50m to give way is just silly.
J
-
And of course pedestrians who have yet to set foot on the road carriageway have no priority.
FTFY :D
-
The design of a cycle lane/path coming to a side road and having give way markings wouldn't meet the design standards for .nl. It really shouldn't be allowed in .uk. The whole having to stop every 50m to give way is just silly.
J
Lots of UK cyclepaths don't meet the design standards for UK. In fact we're generally pretty crap at enforcing and adhering to our own standards in lots of things (and that's before we even think about moral standards ::-)). And yes it is extremely silly.
-
Lots of UK cyclepaths don't meet the design standards for UK. In fact we're generally pretty crap at enforcing and adhering to our own standards in lots of things (and that's before we even think about moral standards ::-)). And yes it is extremely silly.
The Uk has design standards? <GD&R>
Did you hear about the speed bump installed on CS6, that didn't comply with UK rules (needs to be at least 900mm) fortunately enough cyclists screaming means they have now removed it. I would like to know wtf the original person who spec'd it was thinking...
J
-
I would like to know wtf the original person who spec'd it was thinking...
"This should slow down the BloodyCyclists." I expect. That seems to be a thought process that's at the forefront of most UK cycle infrastructure.
-
It's all about protection. Or an appearance of protection. The cyclists have to be protected from the motorists, so we put them on the pavement and make them wear safety hats and fluorescent tabards. (The motorists have to be protected from each other by crash barriers, air bags and their own special hi-viz known as DRL, and so on.) Then the pedestrians have to be protected from the cyclists, so we slow the cyclists down to pedestrian speed and make them turn in spaces so tight only an olympic gymnast can get through. Meanwhile, we protect the pedestrians from the motorists by making them press a button and wait for a special light, which only illuminates when there are no motorists, to cross the road. Then we find that no one's using the wonderful facilities we've created...
-
It is also worth noting that the UK highway code explicitly says that if you are doing more than 17mph, you should consider using the carriage way instead on safety grounds.
Where does it say this?
-
I would like to know wtf the original person who spec'd it was thinking...
They don't take cycling seriously so as long as they can tick a statutory box every now and again, they don't actually care. Croydon spent it's entirely cycling budget on a cycle-only traffic light that's out-of-phase with the pedestrian crossing lights 5 metres head.
-
It is also worth noting that the UK highway code explicitly says that if you are doing more than 17mph, you should consider using the carriage way instead on safety grounds.
Where does it say this?
Sorry, not HC, but DfT guidance, it's linked to from http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/, but the link is dead, will continue trying to dig it out.
J
-
I've said it before, but cycle infrastructure really should have a design speed of at least 15mph. Anything else is short-sighted; the e-bike revolution will happen regardless.
-
Lots of UK cyclepaths don't meet the design standards for UK. In fact we're generally pretty crap at enforcing and adhering to our own standards in lots of things (and that's before we even think about moral standards ::-)). And yes it is extremely silly.
The Uk has design standards? <GD&R>
I don't think there are, there's guidelines and that's it.
Whenever I question the local authority on why a new piece of infrastructure doesn't meet the guidelines I'm told they were considered and this time they were unable to implement them. This consideration is apparently their only obligation.
-
Cycling UK and Chris Boardman are trying to put it in perspective
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/12/death-dangerous-cyling-plans-just-tinkering-around-edges-campaigners/
-
It is also worth noting that the UK highway code explicitly says that if you are doing more than 17mph, you should consider using the carriage way instead on safety grounds.
Where does it say this?
Sorry, not HC, but DfT guidance, it's linked to from http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/, but the link is dead, will continue trying to dig it out.
J
IIRC this " > 17mph" guidance was in Franklin's book "Cyclecraft" (which was published by HM Gov in some way, but that doesn't give it legal status!)
-
I find it strange that killing a young child while driving a delivery truck on the pavement hasn't resulted in a call of consultation and 'much needed changes' to the law. But then again, he 'didn't see her.'
-
An average 4 year old is around 100cm tall and won't be seen near parked vehicles.
They should be safe on a footway but the 'need' for a parking space trumped the child's need for a safe existence.
-
Cycling UK and Chris Boardman are trying to put it in perspective
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/12/death-dangerous-cyling-plans-just-tinkering-around-edges-campaigners/
One question, why is it “Killer cyclists” and “dangerous drivers”? What’s wrong with “Killer” drivers too?
Or, of course, “dangerous cyclists like dangerous drivers”, equally accurate?
A
-
An average 4 year old is around 100cm tall and won't be seen near parked vehicles.
They should be safe on a footway but the 'need' for a parking space trumped the child's need for a safe existence.
Well, that's the problem really. We're happier to sacrifice lives than parking spaces (and on a wider scale, there seems little we won't sacrifice to avoid facing up the impact of driving). That's the discussion we should be having. Everything else is, of course, distraction and a way of not thinking about the actual issues.
-
The 18mph guidance was from the DfT:
Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.
Source (archived link): http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688
-
Generally I find that cycle paths aren't fit for more than about 10mph, because they are laid to footpath rather than carriageway standards, and are too bumpy for higher speeds.
-
Generally I find that cycle paths aren't fit for more than about 10mph, because they are laid to footpath rather than carriageway standards, and are too bumpy for higher speeds.
And the people molishing them probably think that's a good thing.
-
Believe it or not, the carriage way, the footway (if parallel to the carriage way and within 14 yards of the carriage way), and the cycle way, are all considered the same road...
It is also worth noting that the UK highway code explicitly says that if you are doing more than 17mph, you should consider using the carriage way instead on safety grounds
I think that we've sorted out that the 18mph point was in the consultation document in phantasmagoriana's link, and not actually in the Highway Code, although it does perhaps provide some evidence that the government does not consider 20mph inappropriate in appropriate circumstances, and that choosing the road can also be appropriate.
What about the point about all the above being part of the highway? Is that correct?
-
The highway is defined from boundary to boundary so includes any and all of carriageway, footway, cycleway and verges.
-
The next time I run over a pedestrian and kill them when I'm cycling, I'll definitely try and remember to say I didn't see them. ::-)
-
This is the "work" of a gentleman whose wife was killed by a cyclist (enough discussion elsewhere about the actual incident)
...
I can sympathise with him and see why if it was my wife then I would be keen to see a structured current law that enabled an appropriate prosecution.
Whilst I can sympathise his loss it was ultimately his wives negligence that resulted in the collision causing her death.
Though my opinion may be biased given that I've recently been involved in a cyclist on pedestrian collision which was caused by a pedestrians negligence. A collision we were both lucky to walk away from.
Had I died as a result would he have been charged with manslaughter or death by dangerous walking?
Referring back to the case, there were complicating factors, mostly summed up by the fact that he was twat who rather than slowed down, attempted a manoeuvre that led to the woman's death. Pedestrians step out into the road, I think it's my responsibility as a cyclist to be in a position to avoid them even if that inconveniences me. It would be nice if drivers would adopt the same philosophy.
...
If we put every twat on trial then...
Pedestrians are entitled to step out but any one with a gram of self preservation doesn't step out without checking it's clear.
And yes, slowing down when encountering a lemming is the sensible thing to do, if you have the chance.
-
There was numerous commentary on the case at the time, much of it more informed than I am, I'd recommend you read them. It seems she stepped out and he opted to yell at her rather than slow significantly. She panicked and stepped back (not an exactly unusual response). He hit her. She died (again an unlikely event). Personally, if I had killed someone, I'd probably not take that as my cue to take to social media to berate her and then lie about her being on a phone. Pedestrians step out into the road. I'm of the odd and perhaps overly liberal belief that the punishment for a moment's inattention or distraction shouldn't be death. And to be honest, I think referring to woman who died as a 'lemming' is pretty cruel and unthinking too.
Anyway, he yelled and tried to cycle around her. It was debatable if he'd have been able to stop considering the lack of a front brake, but he should have had one, and there's good reasons for that, not to mention it's the law and the ignorance thereof isn't an excuse. I don't really have much sympathy, it's an attitude I've seen too many times and not any different from the drivers who also believe everyone should get out of their way. Pedestrians are the most vulnerable category of people on the roads and that vulnerability should be respected.
Yes, I'd agree that had he been driving, I doubt he'd have been charged or found guilty of any offence. That's sadly too common. But that doesn't make it correct that he shouldn't face sanction – just that drivers should receive the same. I'd also agree that remorse is easy to feign and perhaps shouldn't play such a large part in court proceedings, but he doesn't seem he put much effort into trying to appear anything other than callous and unsympathetic.
None of this changes the fact that it's a preciously rare event. Cyclists don't, on the whole, kill pedestrian (three deaths, blame only attributed to the cyclist in one). I don't know how many injuries but I do know the numbers pale in comparison with the deaths caused by drivers. A fact we're either sadly inured to or simply don't want to acknowledge since in doing so we'd also have to accept that we need to do things differently. That's sadly not a lesson being learned from this and pretending cyclists are the problem is a nice scapegoat, a deflection. It's like ignoring the hungry tigers gathering outside and asking what we're going to do about the rabbits, someone might trip over them.
-
One thing that does seem to be missing, including from the statistics cited in the consultation, is any indication of how many of the mercifully small numbers killed in bike-pedestrian collisons were pedestrians, and how many cyclists. It seems quite likely that it could even be 50:50. For most cyclists, you'd imagine that fear of injury would be as much an incentive to care as fear of prosecution. This of course is different from the situation when we are driving.
I'm not sure that this information is even recorded, however.
-
the horrendous danger of cyclists is thrown into perspective by this week's incident in London:
https://news.sky.com/story/transport-secretary-chris-grayling-says-there-is-a-case-to-ban-cars-from-westminster-after-attack-11473182
-
Haven't read it but it may be that Grayling is worried about his own workplace, after all he is there several days a year. Attacks will continue elsewhere.
-
Drivers kill and injure people all the time (around 180,000 per year for perspective). But hey, they're not driven by terrorists, otherwise something would have to be done.
-
I think that taking a step back and looking at the reasons for this would be beneficial.
This is the "work" of a gentleman whose wife was killed by a cyclist (enough discussion elsewhere about the actual incident)
Apparently he was told that there was no law under which the cyclist could be prosecuted and after consultation, that the best they could do was to charge him with "wanton and furious cycling" under section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving):
"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."
The sentence is also out of line with a motorist committing the same offence.
I can sympathise with him and see why if it was my wife then I would be keen to see a structured current law that enabled an appropriate prosecution.
Having said that the law has been used against motorists where the offence has been outside the limits of normal prosecution (private land etc)
The consultation document is here (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/new-cycling-offences-causing-death-or-serious-injury-when-cycling/cycling-and-walking-investment-strategy-safety-review-proposals-for-new-cycling-offences)
The statistics are: 2016, 3 pedestrians killed in accidents with cyclists but note that blame was not assigned specifically to the cyclists involved, last year 9 people died from being hit by mobility scooters, plus how many road users have been injured by the actions of pedestrians? If there is a new law specifically for cyclists it seems only logical that all other users of highways and footways should be treated the same way.
I'm sorry that your wife has died, and that there is no legal facility to prosecute the person that killed them. However we can prosecute under an archaic law that precedes motor vehicles.
However there is good news... there are only a few people killed this way every year so really you should just accept it.
-
Restricting access to motor vehicles on terrorism grounds may have pleasing unintended consequences, though I note that temporary anti-terrorism barriers are depressingly effective at blocking cyclists. (They managed to make the centre of Birmingham almost completely impenetrable by bike last winter through a combination of these, building works and existing cycling restrictions around the tram tracks.) As with Silly Sustrans Gates™, they disproportionately affect women and disabled cyclists.
-
I find it strange that killing a young child while driving a delivery truck on the pavement hasn't resulted in a call of consultation and 'much needed changes' to the law. But then again, he 'didn't see her.'
Imagine the "outrage" if there was no law to prosecute the driver and they had been forced to resort to an archaic law in desperation to do so..... it is called parity
Kill and face the same charges
-
The checkpoints put in around the City of London during the IRA bombing in the early '90s also had the effect of reducing through traffic; presumably only motor traffic, as the check points were all on carriageway and for searching vans etc – anyway, there were far fewer cyclists back then. And they found the effect so good, they made some of the road closures permanent. They probably don't have enough police to do anything similar now.
-
Restricting access to motor vehicles on terrorism grounds may have pleasing unintended consequences, though I note that temporary anti-terrorism barriers are depressingly effective at blocking cyclists. (They managed to make the centre of Birmingham almost completely impenetrable by bike last winter through a combination of these, building works and existing cycling restrictions around the tram tracks.) As with Silly Sustrans Gates™, they disproportionately affect women and disabled cyclists.
I remember Exeter station.....
They had a "No bicycles near the station" policy as "they could be used by terrorists to hide a bomb".
The decision was then taken to remove these "threats" by removing them and then taking them to a storage area at the back of the ticket office...... had they been IEDs that would have exponentially increased the effectiveness of the device.
Even more bizarre was that cars were allowed to park up against the wall of the station (over 50 spaces directly adjacent) .... despite the fact that car bombs are a standard terrorist tool
-
I remember Exeter station.....
They had a "No bicycles near the station" policy as "they could be used by terrorists to hide a bomb".
The decision was then taken to remove these "threats" by removing them and then taking them to a storage area at the back of the ticket office...... had they been IEDs that would have exponentially increased the effectiveness of the device.
Even more bizarre was that cars were allowed to park up against the wall of the station (over 50 spaces directly adjacent) .... despite the fact that car bombs are a standard terrorist tool
One of the downsides of working in security is how infuriating it is when you come across stupid stuff like this that is clearly security theatre with no obvious actual purpose other than to make it look like they are doing something...
Drives me nuts.
J
-
I remember Exeter station.....
They had a "No bicycles near the station" policy as "they could be used by terrorists to hide a bomb".
The decision was then taken to remove these "threats" by removing them and then taking them to a storage area at the back of the ticket office...... had they been IEDs that would have exponentially increased the effectiveness of the device.
Even more bizarre was that cars were allowed to park up against the wall of the station (over 50 spaces directly adjacent) .... despite the fact that car bombs are a standard terrorist tool
One of the downsides of working in security is how infuriating it is when you come across stupid stuff like this that is clearly security theatre with no obvious actual purpose other than to make it look like they are doing something...
To be fair, I don't think that's security theatre so much as security as an excuse. They don't like bicycles parked near their station (perhaps because they block access, or maybe they just think they look untidy or something), so they remove them for 'security' reasons. See also "health & safety" or "fire regulations" (particularly when used as an excuse for not providing access to disabled people).
-
To be fair, I don't think that's security theatre so much as security as an excuse. They don't like bicycles parked near their station, so they remove them for 'security' reasons. See also "health & safety" or "fire regulations" (particularly when used as an excuse for not providing access to disabled people).
Same with data protection law. Drives me nuts how often that is misquoted by someone just wanting to be obstinate.
But yes, you are right, the line between security theatre and security as an excuse is very narrow...
J
-
Same with data protection law. Drives me nuts how often that is misquoted by someone just wanting to be obstinate.
Which feeds into the general mess of people not understanding data protection law...
-
I find it strange that killing a young child while driving a delivery truck on the pavement hasn't resulted in a call of consultation and 'much needed changes' to the law. But then again, he 'didn't see her.'
Didn't see them, or thought I had run over a rabbit are valid excuses for murder.
-
This will reignite the debate I suspect...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45497026
-
That bbc article makes no attempt to point out that the CCTV shows her sprint across the road into the side of the cyclist while (she was) looking in the opposite direction. Or that "fled the scene" involved picking up his broken bike and limping away bleeding while a passer by yelled in his ear. Or that he then handed himself in to police (it does say that they released him).
I hope his bike was perfectly legal, otherwise this will be used by the anti-cycling brigade to defame everyone who has ever been on 2 wheels (despite the fact that were he riding a motorcycle or driving a car, this would not be newsworthy in any way).
-
Interesting. So she wasn't 'hit by a cycle' and the cyclist 'didn't leave the scene' and isn't 'helping police with their enquiries.'
(Not commenting the case specifically, I've no idea what actually happened and have read zero about it, just the completely different way it would be reported if she'd 'been struck by a car.')
-
That bbc article makes no attempt to point out that the CCTV shows her sprint across the road into the side of the cyclist while (she was) looking in the opposite direction. Or that "fled the scene" involved picking up his broken bike and limping away bleeding while a passer by yelled in his ear. Or that he then handed himself in to police (it does say that they released him).
I hope his bike was perfectly legal, otherwise this will be used by the anti-cycling brigade to defame everyone who has ever been on 2 wheels (despite the fact that were he riding a motorcycle or driving a car, this would not be newsworthy in any way).
I did think it was click-bait, saying as it does she was hit “while crossing the road” however when I first read it it said the rider hadn’t stopped and that the bike was “found abandoned”” later.
-
The bike is supposedly an e-bike, and the rumour is it was modified to go faster than the permitted limits for e-bikes.
If that turns out to be true then it could make things interesting (in terms of deflecting the attention of the swivel-eyed loons away from 'cyclists' to 'e-bike menaces' or whatever they're called).
-
A media outlet jumping to conclusions before the full facts are established and whipping up controversy as a result? Fancy that 🤔
A
-
There's a link to the video in here (if it still works): https://road.cc/content/news/247678-dalston-pedestrian-involved-collision-e-bike-rider-tried-cross-when-lights-were
I haven't seen anyone claiming knowledge of the bike, just a load of supposition - I guess we'll have to wait on the police to find that out. If his bike was fine, based on the footage, I don't see what you would charge him with (I believ that leaving the scene is a motoring offence, and so not relevant to a cyclist?).
-
The bike is supposedly an e-bike, and the rumour is it was modified to go faster than the permitted limits for e-bikes.
If that turns out to be true then it could make things interesting (in terms of deflecting the attention of the swivel-eyed loons away from 'cyclists' to 'e-bike menaces' or whatever they're called).
Arguably worse if it's a perfectly legal e-bike.
-
The bike is supposedly an e-bike, and the rumour is it was modified to go faster than the permitted limits for e-bikes.
If that turns out to be true then it could make things interesting (in terms of deflecting the attention of the swivel-eyed loons away from 'cyclists' to 'e-bike menaces' or whatever they're called).
Arguably worse if it's a perfectly legal e-bike.
I dunno. From a news perspective, if there's no law-breaking then at some point it just becomes another RTC (or whatever the current acronym is used for drivers killing people).
If it's an illegal e-bike, then there will be a whole load of fuss about how he was breaking the law and that's why he killed some poor woman, and how we should regulate e-bikes and how dongles that beat the speed sensor were created by satan and... By the end of this process, all e-bikes will be tarred with the same brush, in the same way that all cyclists run red lights and don't signal.
-
Ok, I've watched the footage of the collision. He's riding at a fair clip, but probably under 20mph, it is hard to judge. He is well, well out from the kerb, at least 6ft out. She steps off the kerb, then absolutely sprints out, straight into him - not in front of him, but looks like she hits his arm/handlebars.
He had no chance at all to avoid the collision, in my judgement.