Author Topic: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc  (Read 2200 times)

Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #50 on: August 15, 2018, 05:08:37 pm »
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

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.


Kim

  • 2nd in the world
Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #51 on: August 15, 2018, 05:11:26 pm »
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.
To ride the Windcheetah, first, you must embrace the cantilever...

Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #52 on: August 15, 2018, 05:12:12 pm »
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

Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #53 on: August 15, 2018, 05:17:11 pm »
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.
The earth is vast and beautiful and contains many miraculous places. (Chekhov)

Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #54 on: August 15, 2018, 05:19:42 pm »
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




quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #55 on: August 16, 2018, 12:07:23 pm »
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
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Kim

  • 2nd in the world
Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #56 on: August 16, 2018, 01:16:36 pm »
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 ride the Windcheetah, first, you must embrace the cantilever...

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #57 on: August 16, 2018, 01:21:17 pm »

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
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Kim

  • 2nd in the world
Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #58 on: August 16, 2018, 01:25:33 pm »
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...
To ride the Windcheetah, first, you must embrace the cantilever...

Gattopardo

  • Lord of the sith
  • Overseaing the building of the death star
Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #59 on: August 16, 2018, 04:25:28 pm »
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.


Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #60 on: September 12, 2018, 04:38:30 pm »
This will reignite the debate I suspect...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45497026
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #61 on: September 12, 2018, 05:04:56 pm »
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).

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #62 on: September 12, 2018, 10:19:01 pm »
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.')
!nataS pihsroW

Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #63 on: September 13, 2018, 07:29:31 am »
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.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #64 on: September 13, 2018, 08:12:05 am »
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).
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #65 on: September 13, 2018, 08:28:48 am »
A media outlet jumping to conclusions before the full facts are established and whipping up controversy as a result? Fancy that 🤔

A

Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #66 on: September 13, 2018, 12:51:34 pm »
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?).

Kim

  • 2nd in the world
Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #67 on: September 13, 2018, 01:00:56 pm »
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.
To ride the Windcheetah, first, you must embrace the cantilever...

Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #68 on: September 14, 2018, 01:26:35 pm »
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.

Re: Manslaughter vs Death by dangerous etc
« Reply #69 on: September 14, 2018, 02:57:45 pm »
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.
<i>Marmite slave</i>