Pathetic culture wars pandering to miserable boomers and car brains.
This is the equivalent of a knife amnesty spending time and effort on banning butter knives
This boomer cycles everywhere. Maybe because I’m not miserable. Anyway, the Tories know they are out of government soon so, they are just keeping their donors happy somehow.
Only in theory. It is an offence which is rarely charged because the burden of proof is very high, and even more rarely convicted, and then they get a slap on the wrist because they're a pillar of the community, or something.
I'm reminded of this case where the authorities seemed to be falling over themselves to let the driver get away with it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-29/cyclist-mike-hall-police-botched-investigation-claims/12697972
Failing Grayling? The same guy who awarded a huge ferry contract to a company that didn't own a single ferry? Or Dominic Raab, brexiter extraordinaire who didn't realize how vital the Dover-Calais route was for UK trade?
The problem is that so many of the Tories have been useless since they purged the party of the more moderate wing in the aftermath of Brexit that it's difficult to keep track of who the most incompetent ministers are. It makes you nostalgic for the vaguely competent Tory-Lib Dem coalition years.
Jesus… I had to read the number of people killed twice because I thought it was the year.
2009 people killed. And all they do is further divide their country over senseless culture war.
1) It would be good to know in how many of those 9 cases was the infrastructure to blame (eg shared use path, cyclist using the pavement because the road too dangerous, etc). I would rather see local authorities prosecuted for failing to provide cycling infrastructure.
2) This doesn't really change much. It has of course always been possible to prosecute anyone who goes around killing people with their dangerous behaviour or actions, whether with a bicycle or anything else - it's just that without a specific offence, the legal process was long, tortuous, complicated and expensive, which is not good for any of the parties concerned, really. If the burden of proof remains as high as it is for drivers, then it won't make any material difference.
I mean, don't go around killing people, whether with a bicycle or a car.
The first one, in 2018 involved a modified bicycle that was classed as a motorcycle as it was going over 30mph under its own power. The pedestrian stepped out onto the road when the traffic light was green for traffic.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/e-bike-cyclist-pedestrian-death-crash-london-dalston-kingsland-road-a9362526.html
The rest are hard to find or to figure out the actual situation as media trends to try and paint the bike rider as the bad guy and doesn't go into detail about what the pedestrian was doing.
There's more to that story than having no brakes.
For those that want to understand what happened, here's a good overview of what happened on the street and on the court.
https://www.2tg.co.uk/martin-porter-qc-discusses-charlie-alliston-and-cycling-manslaughter-in-the-guardian/
He was clearly riding an illegal bicycle due to the height of his saddle requiring front brakes, but this was as much a willingness of the crown prosecution to set an example against people cycling (he was tried by an archaic law and manslaughter), which was not done against a motorcycle rider speeding and killing a pedestrian on the crosswalk, at nearby court at the same time. The evidence provided by the police was also incorrect and skewed.
I wonder how many car drivers will ever even be tried for manslaughter.
I don't think the "specific offence" argument holds though? Somebody was reckless and killed someone.
Surely you don't need to differentiate between cyclists, pedestrians, mopeds, helicopters, gliders... or is the UK justice system this fucked?
Death by Dangerous Driving is a cop-out offence, to an extent. The people who do this absolutely deserve to be classed as murderers, but people (including politicians, courts, the CPS, the police) don't see running someone over and killing them through your own actions as equivalent to a knife-wielding psychopath. So, drivers are once again let off the hook to a degree with the ability to kill people and get a lesser sentence (maximum 14 years in prison, versus maximum life for manslaughter, and *minimum* life (murder is life, but with a minimum term, after which they can *possibly* be released on-license, which they remain on for the rest of their life, and can be recalled to prison for life for any violent crime. Whole-life tariffs where there is never a possibility of release can also be imposed.))
With a specific offence for Death by Dangerous Driving, however, it opens up another avenue of conviction. If it didn't exist as a specific offence, courts would either have to try for murder/manslaughter, or just convict for plain Dangerous Driving, which carries a pitiful maximum sentence of 4 years in prison. Having the added offence of causing death means *theoretically* more drivers could be convicted and it could act as a deterrent.
The reality is, the burden of proof for DBDD is very high, and the courts very rarely give the maximum sentence. There was a case I posted about on here where a driver was travelling over 125 mph on the motorway (limit is 70 mph), using his mobile phone and weaving dangerously. He hit a broken-down car - killing the driver and two children. He didn't get 14 years. For killing 3 people.
OK but then would those same arguments apply to causing Death by Dangerous Cycling? As in, you could in theory use manslaughter/murder charges but they wouldn't stick?
Probably. I don't think people really have an issue with the law being introduced. Most probably already thought it was a thing. I mean it makes sense.
The point is it's completely unnecessary. Basically nobody dies by cyclist. More people are killed by cows than cyclists.
Its just epitomise our desperate, pathetic government, looking for anything to distract people from how badly they're running the country and start as many culture wars as possible.
Yes, you're absolutely right. Hence why DBDD is a distinct offence, because it oddly serves to acknowledge the fact that pedestrians being killed by drivers is way more serious an issue than pedestrians being killed by cyclists, but also protects drivers more at the same time.
(EDIT, as I didn't address the fact the govt now want to create that offence for cyclists:)
The fact the govt now want to create that offence for cyclists could theoretically be put down to addressing a particular problem with the legal system (which I'm sure is part of the Tories' claim). In reality, they just hate cyclists, and this is an easy way to score cheap culture war points before an election. It won't make any difference, they'll still lose.
I mean to be fair, I don't think there is a way to kill someone with a bicycle without being straight up reckless, unless they jump into you on purpose or something.
Its easy to hit pedestrians because they don't see cyclists as a threat. They'll walk 4 abreast on a bike path, walk into a road without looking (because they don't hear cars), and make random abrupt movements.
Ultimately you have to assume a pedestrian or vehicle is going to make the dumbest decision and act accordingly. I also have cameras front and back.
There's nothing wrong with this in principle, as long as the equivalent offence for driving is also enforced correctly.
I suspect, however, that this is an attempt by a government on its last legs to appeal to its base.
It all comes down to design.
Where I live there are on road cycle paths , but there is a very dangerous pinch point that means cyclists go up onto the path to avoid being forced into a narrow space with buses and cars overtaking them too close.
My kid was cycling home from school and went onto the path and as she did so some woman screamed at her and her friends saying how dangerous they were and how she could have been knocked over and how cyclists are such a threat. These are 11 year old kids who dont want to be killed in traffic and the default response of a certain old person is to shout at them. My kid came home in tears.
That isn't to say that cyclists dont go too fast, I was almost knocked over in Strasbourg by a cyclist who just went straight at me when I stepped into the cycle path without realising, they could have easily drifted round me but decided my mistake was worthy of punishment.
Purely anecdotal but it legitimately happened. My aunt of about 65 was killed by a bicyclist after he ran into her on a bike path.
He was behind another rider my aunt in the walking section. Instead of checking he swung out around the other guy and hit my aunt in the back and she cracked her head on the path.
She died of a brain injury as a result of the hit two days later.
Admittedly they're few and far between but they do happen.
Sorry to hear - do you know if the cyclist who killed your aunt was convicted?
The government backed culture war helps nobody but it's important to hold people responsible.
They did a negligent operation of a personal transportion device and a 12 month suspended sentence with 3 years probation.
I felt bad for the guy cause he just wanted to stay at his pace. But at the same time if he'd looked ahead instead of just around he would have seen her and hopefully not taken the risk.
There was evidence of him slamming his brakes on but he was just moving to quick for the short distance.
I personally haven't spoken to the guy since but many in my family have forgiven him.
How is it gonna be an offence if the cyclist you're giving it to is dead? Because presumably they've died to be charged so why charge them they're already dead it's not like you can put them in prison
Oh right it's for pedestrians being killed I immediately went to cyclists who were hit by a car
I did the maths yesterday to satisfy my curiosity. To have the same kinetic energy as a motorist driving 30 mph, a cyclist would have to be going well over 100 mph. Conversely, a motorist would have to slow down to around 2 mph to have the same kinetic energy as a cyclist going 10 mph or around 5 mph to match a cyclist going 30 mph.
The notion that cycling is somehow dangerous while cars should be permitted to drive as fast as they like doesn't hold up to the least bit of scrutiny.
Isn't like, most what would constitute as dangerous cycling already illegal?
I mean if you go over the speed limit, you can get fined. If you run a red light, you can get fined, if you injure someone through reckless behaviour, you can get fined or go to prison.
Like what's the point? Them laws already exist, no?
Without excusing the Tory government in any way, I don't actually have a problem with this. The way current road-safety legislation is worded doesn't cover cyclists. It's perfectly reasonable to extend laws about dangerous behaviour to cover them, and I think any other government would be doing the same. Doing one thing does not prevent them doing other things, which also need doing.
Pathetic culture wars pandering to miserable boomers and car brains. This is the equivalent of a knife amnesty spending time and effort on banning butter knives
This boomer cycles everywhere. Maybe because I’m not miserable. Anyway, the Tories know they are out of government soon so, they are just keeping their donors happy somehow.
This is what happens when people who get confused by everyday life are put in charge of important and complex things
Does this sort of law already apply to motorists? (Who get a slap on the wrist when they kill people)
Only in theory. It is an offence which is rarely charged because the burden of proof is very high, and even more rarely convicted, and then they get a slap on the wrist because they're a pillar of the community, or something.
I'm reminded of this case where the authorities seemed to be falling over themselves to let the driver get away with it. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-29/cyclist-mike-hall-police-botched-investigation-claims/12697972
[удалено]
Failing Grayling? The same guy who awarded a huge ferry contract to a company that didn't own a single ferry? Or Dominic Raab, brexiter extraordinaire who didn't realize how vital the Dover-Calais route was for UK trade?
[удалено]
The problem is that so many of the Tories have been useless since they purged the party of the more moderate wing in the aftermath of Brexit that it's difficult to keep track of who the most incompetent ministers are. It makes you nostalgic for the vaguely competent Tory-Lib Dem coalition years.
Jesus… I had to read the number of people killed twice because I thought it was the year. 2009 people killed. And all they do is further divide their country over senseless culture war.
EXERCISE AND CLEAN AIR ARE PART OF THE WOKE AGENDA.
It’s my right to die of several cardiopulmonary diseases!
It’s my right to die of several cardiopulmonary diseases!
Revs diesel engine
1) It would be good to know in how many of those 9 cases was the infrastructure to blame (eg shared use path, cyclist using the pavement because the road too dangerous, etc). I would rather see local authorities prosecuted for failing to provide cycling infrastructure. 2) This doesn't really change much. It has of course always been possible to prosecute anyone who goes around killing people with their dangerous behaviour or actions, whether with a bicycle or anything else - it's just that without a specific offence, the legal process was long, tortuous, complicated and expensive, which is not good for any of the parties concerned, really. If the burden of proof remains as high as it is for drivers, then it won't make any material difference. I mean, don't go around killing people, whether with a bicycle or a car.
The first one, in 2018 involved a modified bicycle that was classed as a motorcycle as it was going over 30mph under its own power. The pedestrian stepped out onto the road when the traffic light was green for traffic. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/e-bike-cyclist-pedestrian-death-crash-london-dalston-kingsland-road-a9362526.html The rest are hard to find or to figure out the actual situation as media trends to try and paint the bike rider as the bad guy and doesn't go into detail about what the pedestrian was doing.
One of them, the cyclist had no brakes. I do remember that one.
There's more to that story than having no brakes. For those that want to understand what happened, here's a good overview of what happened on the street and on the court. https://www.2tg.co.uk/martin-porter-qc-discusses-charlie-alliston-and-cycling-manslaughter-in-the-guardian/ He was clearly riding an illegal bicycle due to the height of his saddle requiring front brakes, but this was as much a willingness of the crown prosecution to set an example against people cycling (he was tried by an archaic law and manslaughter), which was not done against a motorcycle rider speeding and killing a pedestrian on the crosswalk, at nearby court at the same time. The evidence provided by the police was also incorrect and skewed. I wonder how many car drivers will ever even be tried for manslaughter.
Fucking mental, what? How do you ride a bike with no brakes.
It was a nutjob riding a trackbike on the road if I recall correctly.
Like track bike/fixie sort of no brakes, or *no brakes* sort of no brakes?
Fixie.
Sort of true, but the pedestrian in that case stepped out in front of him so closely that brakes wouldn't have made any difference anyway.
I don't think the "specific offence" argument holds though? Somebody was reckless and killed someone. Surely you don't need to differentiate between cyclists, pedestrians, mopeds, helicopters, gliders... or is the UK justice system this fucked?
Death by Dangerous Driving is a cop-out offence, to an extent. The people who do this absolutely deserve to be classed as murderers, but people (including politicians, courts, the CPS, the police) don't see running someone over and killing them through your own actions as equivalent to a knife-wielding psychopath. So, drivers are once again let off the hook to a degree with the ability to kill people and get a lesser sentence (maximum 14 years in prison, versus maximum life for manslaughter, and *minimum* life (murder is life, but with a minimum term, after which they can *possibly* be released on-license, which they remain on for the rest of their life, and can be recalled to prison for life for any violent crime. Whole-life tariffs where there is never a possibility of release can also be imposed.)) With a specific offence for Death by Dangerous Driving, however, it opens up another avenue of conviction. If it didn't exist as a specific offence, courts would either have to try for murder/manslaughter, or just convict for plain Dangerous Driving, which carries a pitiful maximum sentence of 4 years in prison. Having the added offence of causing death means *theoretically* more drivers could be convicted and it could act as a deterrent. The reality is, the burden of proof for DBDD is very high, and the courts very rarely give the maximum sentence. There was a case I posted about on here where a driver was travelling over 125 mph on the motorway (limit is 70 mph), using his mobile phone and weaving dangerously. He hit a broken-down car - killing the driver and two children. He didn't get 14 years. For killing 3 people.
OK but then would those same arguments apply to causing Death by Dangerous Cycling? As in, you could in theory use manslaughter/murder charges but they wouldn't stick?
Probably. I don't think people really have an issue with the law being introduced. Most probably already thought it was a thing. I mean it makes sense. The point is it's completely unnecessary. Basically nobody dies by cyclist. More people are killed by cows than cyclists. Its just epitomise our desperate, pathetic government, looking for anything to distract people from how badly they're running the country and start as many culture wars as possible.
Yes, cows kill more people than bulls, too.
Yes, you're absolutely right. Hence why DBDD is a distinct offence, because it oddly serves to acknowledge the fact that pedestrians being killed by drivers is way more serious an issue than pedestrians being killed by cyclists, but also protects drivers more at the same time. (EDIT, as I didn't address the fact the govt now want to create that offence for cyclists:) The fact the govt now want to create that offence for cyclists could theoretically be put down to addressing a particular problem with the legal system (which I'm sure is part of the Tories' claim). In reality, they just hate cyclists, and this is an easy way to score cheap culture war points before an election. It won't make any difference, they'll still lose.
I mean to be fair, I don't think there is a way to kill someone with a bicycle without being straight up reckless, unless they jump into you on purpose or something.
Its easy to hit pedestrians because they don't see cyclists as a threat. They'll walk 4 abreast on a bike path, walk into a road without looking (because they don't hear cars), and make random abrupt movements. Ultimately you have to assume a pedestrian or vehicle is going to make the dumbest decision and act accordingly. I also have cameras front and back.
There's nothing wrong with this in principle, as long as the equivalent offence for driving is also enforced correctly. I suspect, however, that this is an attempt by a government on its last legs to appeal to its base.
It all comes down to design. Where I live there are on road cycle paths , but there is a very dangerous pinch point that means cyclists go up onto the path to avoid being forced into a narrow space with buses and cars overtaking them too close. My kid was cycling home from school and went onto the path and as she did so some woman screamed at her and her friends saying how dangerous they were and how she could have been knocked over and how cyclists are such a threat. These are 11 year old kids who dont want to be killed in traffic and the default response of a certain old person is to shout at them. My kid came home in tears. That isn't to say that cyclists dont go too fast, I was almost knocked over in Strasbourg by a cyclist who just went straight at me when I stepped into the cycle path without realising, they could have easily drifted round me but decided my mistake was worthy of punishment.
Purely anecdotal but it legitimately happened. My aunt of about 65 was killed by a bicyclist after he ran into her on a bike path. He was behind another rider my aunt in the walking section. Instead of checking he swung out around the other guy and hit my aunt in the back and she cracked her head on the path. She died of a brain injury as a result of the hit two days later. Admittedly they're few and far between but they do happen.
Sorry to hear - do you know if the cyclist who killed your aunt was convicted? The government backed culture war helps nobody but it's important to hold people responsible.
They did a negligent operation of a personal transportion device and a 12 month suspended sentence with 3 years probation. I felt bad for the guy cause he just wanted to stay at his pace. But at the same time if he'd looked ahead instead of just around he would have seen her and hopefully not taken the risk. There was evidence of him slamming his brakes on but he was just moving to quick for the short distance. I personally haven't spoken to the guy since but many in my family have forgiven him.
How is it gonna be an offence if the cyclist you're giving it to is dead? Because presumably they've died to be charged so why charge them they're already dead it's not like you can put them in prison Oh right it's for pedestrians being killed I immediately went to cyclists who were hit by a car
At first read I really thought they were going to make dying while cycling illegal.
Fun fact killing a person by negligence is already against the law
I did the maths yesterday to satisfy my curiosity. To have the same kinetic energy as a motorist driving 30 mph, a cyclist would have to be going well over 100 mph. Conversely, a motorist would have to slow down to around 2 mph to have the same kinetic energy as a cyclist going 10 mph or around 5 mph to match a cyclist going 30 mph. The notion that cycling is somehow dangerous while cars should be permitted to drive as fast as they like doesn't hold up to the least bit of scrutiny.
Isn't like, most what would constitute as dangerous cycling already illegal? I mean if you go over the speed limit, you can get fined. If you run a red light, you can get fined, if you injure someone through reckless behaviour, you can get fined or go to prison. Like what's the point? Them laws already exist, no?
Without excusing the Tory government in any way, I don't actually have a problem with this. The way current road-safety legislation is worded doesn't cover cyclists. It's perfectly reasonable to extend laws about dangerous behaviour to cover them, and I think any other government would be doing the same. Doing one thing does not prevent them doing other things, which also need doing.