What will be classed as dangerous cycling?

[PK99]

Seriously? Remember, the crime is "Death by dangerous cycling". I doubt there are any cyclists who are doing things that they believe would lead to the death of another person.

The intent and offence is the dangerous cycling; if the cyclist believed their action would cause death, the intent and offence, is murder

 

[Dan B]

The intent and offence is the dangerous cycling; if the cyclist believed their action would cause death, the intent and offence, is murder

But good luck bringing a prosecution for murder in those circumstances: it'd (perhaps rightly) be a hard one to prove. Death by Dangerous Driving exists mostly because the CPS are reluctant to push for a manslaughter trial for vehicle-assisted crimes

 

[jefmcg]

The intent and offence is the dangerous cycling; if the cyclist believed their action would cause death, the intent and offence, is murder

No, that wasn't my point. I was saying that I don't believe this law will change most cyclists behaviours. I already cycle on a shared path in a manner that I believe does not endanger pedestrians, because the consequence of behaving in any other way is that I might hurt someone. The reason I don't endanger lives not is because it's illegal. Or am I rare in believing that killing is wrong?

 

[DrSquirrel]

You can, but you shouldn't cycle more than three abreast (it's not a must not)

66
You should

• keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
• keep both feet on the pedals
• never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

As pointed out, its not a MUST, and has no relevant law. Although its said that failure to comply with HC can be considered dangerous.

Overtaking someone acting dangerously would probably be considered dangerous in itself. So overtaking 3 cyclists abreast into oncoming traffic, overtaking party would be at fault.


Another point needs to be considered is at what point is "riding abreast" and "overtaking", a single cyclist overtaking 2 abreast, or even 3 in a group and changing positions. I'm sure enough motorists will instantly see 3 abreast as evil, even if they do fan out... this wont matter they were "riding 3 abreast and must be taxed"

 

[Malcolm44]

I thought that the highway code was not law..... only a guide, in other words, if you follow the guidelines stated within the highway code, then you are generally compliant with the Road Traffic Act

or am I mistaken

 

[Bman]

I thought that the highway code was not law..... only a guide, in other words, if you follow the guidelines stated within the highway code, then you are generally compliant with the Road Traffic Act

or am I mistaken

Correct. There are bits that refer to law, where it says "You MUST" or "You Must not", but it is not law in itself.

However, I think it has been used in court before.

 

[dondare]

The courts are usually sensible, and the CPS is sensible about when to prosecute. The law won't get passed, and if it did MPs wouldn't go further than to define an offence, they'd leave the detail to the police, CPS, and courts as with other similar matters.

It's a non-problem under our system while we have an independent judiciary and high quality barristers.

That's a joke, right?

 

[Vikeonabike]

Dangerous cycling is already covered by the RTA,

28 Dangerous cycling.(1)A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—

(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and

(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.

(3)In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.”

So causing Death by Dangerous cycling would be this offence resulting in the death of a person(s)

Simples...

BTW a road...would mean footpath, cycle path, bridleway or any other byway or highway

 

[jugglingphil]

It's a completely pointless law, I bet it'll never get used.
Just look at the number of times the CPS decide to prosecute a car/bus/lorry driver for "death by careless driving" rather than "death by dangerous driving" when a cyclist is killed.
It'd be more usable if the new law was "death by careless riding" anything more than that is manslaughter etc etc.

Jumping a red light, riding on pavement, etc doesn't automatically make riding dangerous to yourself or others.

 

[perplexed]

The OP has a good point.

The problem is one of perception. To me, an example would be the below:

Ordinary bloke riding home on the road when somebody, possibly elderly and infirm, steps out in front of him. There is a collision, and the elderly gentleman dies. The cyclist didn't see him in advance because the pedestrian was masked by a tree.

Let's say the guy on the bike was doing 15 mph, and was riding a couple of feet away from the kerb.

So the cyclist wasn't riding badly or recklessly.

However, there's obviously going to be a police investigation. The driver behind says the cyclists was "going like a bat out of hell". Another pedestrian who saw the whole thing says the OAP stepped into the road , but also states that the cyclist was riding "hell for leather".

The police then get a bit more interested in the cyclist, who then has to start effectively going on the defensive.



We know full well that 15mph is not exactly tanking along, but those who are looking into it and investigating it are more often than not, not regular cyclists. I've had people I know who've passed me and said "I saw you earlier, you weren't half hammering along!". Usually when I was probably doing about 12mph. When I say I've done over 40mph on the road bike, they look at me agog.

You'd like to think that after a bit of digging, it would be put down to a sad accident.

But I'm not sure I have that much faith in the system, because to me it has form from personal experience.


Many years ago I was involved in an accident in a car in which I was the innocent party. Totally.

This didn't stop me being charged with a driving offence though, because the other party lied so much, and the police fell for her lies hook, line and sinker.

When the case came up, I thrashed her in court, and was shown to be entirely innocent. One magistrate even said they were considering charges of perjury against her. (Never happened though...)

But the point was I was put through the mill.


So my faith in the system was shaken. The police couldn't weed out the bobbar, and I ended up with the hassle.

 

[Dragonwight]

The actual proposed law isnt called "death by" thou its called "dangerous and reckless cycling" which will cover both dangerous cycling and death by and presumably cycling considered to be reckless likely to cause endangerment which is a catch all for any offence the police consider dangerous. So for example speeding might be considered to be reckless or dangerous if your in a 20mph limit and doing 25 despite having no speedo and currently not being an offence or persistently riding on the pavement or jumping red lights.

Anne Leadsom the MP proposing this has made it clear this law is firmly aimed at stamping out anti social cyclists and sending repeat or serious offenders to prison for a maximum of upto 14 years for "death by".

Given that most plod wouldnt know a dangerous cyclist if they came up and knocked them down I wouldnt put much faith in them to enforce it in a sensible way and I would rightly be suspicious of what they would class as dangerous or reckless. If it passes and it has tacit support from the DoT to possibly be tagged on to other legislation then expect a wave of dodgy prosecutions to pacify the motoring community.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

The actual proposed law isnt called "death by" thou its called "dangerous and reckless cycling"

So how is that different to this:

28 Dangerous cycling.
(1)A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.
(3)In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

 

[Dragonwight]

The addition of the words reckless which isnt necessary dangerous at the time and which isnt defined in the RTA and has a lower burden of prove.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

The addition of the words reckless which isnt necessary dangerous at the time and which isnt defined in the RTA and has a lower burden of prove.

Hm, still not convinced; I can't think of an example that is "reckless" without being "dangerous", but I guess I need to have a look at the proposed bill in detail to see what meanings are applied to the terms. In any case, if that's what's required, then why not just add the word "reckless" to the existing law rather than proposing a whole new law?

 

[Dragonwight]

Sorry i was in a rush to get out of the door i should have said "dangerous cycling" not just dangerous.Reckless cycling is of course dangerous but may not merit the charge of dangerous cycling if no injury is caused. I was thinking of reckless cycling as a lesser offense where no injury has been inflicted.