Is dangerous cycling a problem?
- Thread starter Goto10
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Depends on your perception of danger?
There was a topic here with a video showing an entirely dangerous and unnecessary left hook by a Mini
The OP obviously thought it was unacceptable, but was being told that it was alright by others because it would not have bothered them, and therfore acceptable.
The same happens with "dangerous cycling". The manoeuvre may appear totally acceptable to one person, but the infirm ederly pedestrian may percieve it as dangerous.
Which is it?
There was a topic here with a video showing an entirely dangerous and unnecessary left hook by a Mini
The OP obviously thought it was unacceptable, but was being told that it was alright by others because it would not have bothered them, and therfore acceptable.
The same happens with "dangerous cycling". The manoeuvre may appear totally acceptable to one person, but the infirm ederly pedestrian may percieve it as dangerous.
Which is it?
DrSquirrel
Guest
Anything that is dangerous is a problem.
Falling over is dangerous... BAN FALLING OVER!
you get my point, I hope
Falling over is dangerous... BAN FALLING OVER!
you get my point, I hope
sadjack
Senior Member
- Location
- Deepest darkest North Wales
It is proposed that a new law of causing death by dangerous cycling be created. Personally I dont see an issue with this.
If someone is killed by the actions of a cyclist, that incident should be investigated and if the cyclist is found culpable then they should face a penalty.
What seems to have been identified is that existing legislation does not carry sufficient punishment and the bill proposes to address this.
I just wish that as much fuss was made of the fact drivers are quite literally getting away with it in many cases.
We could of course just charge everyone who kills, whether it be with a gun, knife, car, bike or whatever with manslaughter / murder and take it from there. Something I would be in favour of actually. Life is very precious and the way we deal with people who kill should reflect that.
If someone is killed by the actions of a cyclist, that incident should be investigated and if the cyclist is found culpable then they should face a penalty.
What seems to have been identified is that existing legislation does not carry sufficient punishment and the bill proposes to address this.
I just wish that as much fuss was made of the fact drivers are quite literally getting away with it in many cases.
We could of course just charge everyone who kills, whether it be with a gun, knife, car, bike or whatever with manslaughter / murder and take it from there. Something I would be in favour of actually. Life is very precious and the way we deal with people who kill should reflect that.
I agree, a charge of death by dangerous cycling is a good idea.
I agree that dangerous cycling is an issue and should be reinforced as such, especially more emphasis on people being pulled up for RLJ and pavement cycling more often.
I also think that anyone harmed as a result of a collision is a victim of assault and/or (depending on the speed and circumstance) attempted manslaughter, so the person whose fault the collision is, should be charged as such.
I agree that dangerous cycling is an issue and should be reinforced as such, especially more emphasis on people being pulled up for RLJ and pavement cycling more often.
I also think that anyone harmed as a result of a collision is a victim of assault and/or (depending on the speed and circumstance) attempted manslaughter, so the person whose fault the collision is, should be charged as such.
Why would we need a charge of death by dangerous cycling (or driving, or golfing or whatever) if we have attempted manslaugter charge covering all of these?
Cubist
Still wavin'
- Location
- Ovver 'thill
Because statutory specific offences can have statutory defences built in. For example a person accused of due care, or various other dangerous and reckless driving offences can offer defences such as "Automatism" or "Mechanical Defect". Statutory defences are a double edged sword inasmuch as the defence has to prove one (called the burden of proof) , and the prosecution have to make sure they disprove them.
Manslaughter on the other hand does not have such a statutory defence, and the defence only has to prove on the balance of probability that an automatism or mechanical defect may have contributed to or caused the death. The prosecution can do all they want but without the burden of proof, a defendant only has to introduce reasonable doubt into the minds of a jury for them to be found not guilty.
Only one of many possible answers though!
Because for some bizare reason the manslaughter charge doesn't work.
The BBC article is very interesting. I'm surprised that a manslaughter charge wasn't used in the 2007 case. What we do know, and I think we would all agree, is that a £2,200 fine doesn't seem a reasonable punishment for what happened (Given the assumption that the cyclist was at fault).
Jetston is right - we have laws we can jail cyclists for killing pedestrians (and do). Do we really need more?
And then justifying it on this particular and awkward case. I've read through all the reports I can find. Unfortunately not the actual proceedings. I can't tell whether the cyclist was a homicidal terrorist or someone who made a serious misjudgement under pressure and whether the impact was deliberate, accidental, on the road or the pavement etc. I have a feeling it wasn't clear in the court either. There was no real independent evidence. It was one essentially word against another.
Hence while the cyclist is clearly culpable in the impact could have been averted if he had taken more care - the court could only fairly convict at the lower end of what may have happened. In car terms - careless rather than dangerous driving/riding. Giving him the benefit of the doubt however uncomfortable that is to friends and family of the girl.
If it had been more clearcut the CPS had stronger charges in the locker. But the burden of proof was higher and it looks like its not there.
And then justifying it on this particular and awkward case. I've read through all the reports I can find. Unfortunately not the actual proceedings. I can't tell whether the cyclist was a homicidal terrorist or someone who made a serious misjudgement under pressure and whether the impact was deliberate, accidental, on the road or the pavement etc. I have a feeling it wasn't clear in the court either. There was no real independent evidence. It was one essentially word against another.
Hence while the cyclist is clearly culpable in the impact could have been averted if he had taken more care - the court could only fairly convict at the lower end of what may have happened. In car terms - careless rather than dangerous driving/riding. Giving him the benefit of the doubt however uncomfortable that is to friends and family of the girl.
If it had been more clearcut the CPS had stronger charges in the locker. But the burden of proof was higher and it looks like its not there.
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
On the other hand it's a considerably worse punishment than most drivers get after killing a pedestrian. By that measure cyclists are already punished disproportionately worse than drivers are.
I have no problem with this bill, provided that it brings the same penalties and standards of measurement to drivers.
campbellab
Senior Member
- Location
- Swindon
Waste of time and money. How many cyclists do they actually think they will pursue with this over the next 10 years?
There are far greater priorities in our legal system than this. Plus it just adds uneccesary prejudice against cyclists, now we are so dangerous we need a special law to protect others!?
There are far greater priorities in our legal system than this. Plus it just adds uneccesary prejudice against cyclists, now we are so dangerous we need a special law to protect others!?
Davidc
Guru
- Location
- Somerset UK
Why can't we just have the same law for cyclists as for others? That way a cyclist could kill a pedestrian knowing they'd get the same punishment as a car driver would. A maximum of a 3 month ban and a £50 fine.
It's most unfair that cyclists can go to jail under present laws.
It's most unfair that cyclists can go to jail under present laws.
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
This whole thing is being built around the 2007 incident.
Which if i remember correctly, the cyclist was riding on the road and several girls where playing chicken with the cyclist, purposefully stepping out into the road to cause a conflict!
At one point the girls involved also lied and said the cyclist was cycling on the pavement.
Lets also not forget that reports state that her friends did nothing to help the injured girl. It was the cyclist who stopped and helped her.
I personally don't have a problem with such a thing coming into power. But using that case is probably not wise as it was filled with lies and is very unclear.
The problem that many will have is that this will very rarely get used. Why not spend more time going after motorists that kill hundreds of cyclists and pedestrians each year and only around 25% of them get charged.
Which if i remember correctly, the cyclist was riding on the road and several girls where playing chicken with the cyclist, purposefully stepping out into the road to cause a conflict!
At one point the girls involved also lied and said the cyclist was cycling on the pavement.
Lets also not forget that reports state that her friends did nothing to help the injured girl. It was the cyclist who stopped and helped her.
I personally don't have a problem with such a thing coming into power. But using that case is probably not wise as it was filled with lies and is very unclear.
The problem that many will have is that this will very rarely get used. Why not spend more time going after motorists that kill hundreds of cyclists and pedestrians each year and only around 25% of them get charged.
Over the last 8 years there were 18 fatalities to pedestrians caused by cyclists. Some of these will be due to pedestrians, some will be "no blame" and some will be due to cyclists. Lets say 1/2 are due to cyclists, so around 1 per year. My problem is that there are far more pressing issues that MPs could be addressing. The current law can sentence someone for 2 years under the offences against the person act. Causing death by dangerous driving carries 2 years unless driving stolen vehicles, without insurance, or deliberately taking risks that foreseeably could cause death (is this not murder / manslaughter?) etc. So we will have a new law with pretty much the same penalty as the existing laws........ An MP trying to make a career out of a sad incident perhaps?
