Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc

[Kim]

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.

[Cudzoziemiec]

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...

[JonBuoy]

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?

[ian]

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.

[quixoticgeek]

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

[Kim]

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.

[Paul H]

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.

[Paul H]

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/

[mattc]

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!)

[ian]

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.'

[hellymedic]

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.

[Duckfoot1606]

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

[ian]

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.

[phantasmagoriana]

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

[orienteer]

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.

[Kim]

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.

[drossall]

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?

[Cudzoziemiec]

The highway is defined from boundary to boundary so includes any and all of carriageway, footway, cycleway and verges.

[Adam]

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. 

[markcjagar]

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.

[ian]

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.

[drossall]

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.

[mattc]

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

[Peter]

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.

[ian]

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.