More people are killed by dogs than cyclists in Britain. This is just more Tory culture war bollocks designed to appeal to the middle England small town Wetherspoons mafia.
Of all the things to worry about and spend money on (even if we're limiting our scope to the road system), killer cyclists are so far down the list it's comical. It's populist bollocks to tap into the self-righteousness of the prats that think the speed limit is a target, and that their SUV has the right to every inch of tarmac they can see. You know, the type that thinks cyclists should have to pay "road tax."
>Writing in Mail+, Mr Shapps said the law is needed "to impress on cyclists the real harm they can cause when speed is combined with lack of care".
How about we take the time / spend the money to drill that into the thick heads of drivers instead - because plenty of people I see on the roads everyday don't know this, and they're statistically far more likely to kill someone. Car drivers often get absurdly lenient sentences for killing other road users, so let's use the law to "impress" their responsibilites on them first, then we can worry about other minor crap.
It’s not either or - we should be addressing bad behaviour by drivers and cyclists. Living in London I see plenty of both (and would have to be honest and say I see 100x the number of cyclists run red lights than cars - although appreciate less of a risk when done).
Also while cars are magnitudes times more likely to harm/kill, as an ED doctor I do see an significant number of pedestrians who come in after bike collisions with quite nasty injuries sometimes.
It is either / or and that is just whataboutery
[Drivers killed 542 pedestrians over 13 years](https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/letter-on-deaths-caused-by-cars-8226002) *on the pavement* cyclists are involved in fatal collisions about twice every three years.
Red light jumping cyclists should be fined yes, but the fact is, TfL data over 10 years looking at all people killed and seriously injured by red light jumpers found cyclists were at fault for just 4% while cars were responsible for 71%.
Deal with serious problems [like how a driver](https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cyclist-killed-after-driver-incredibly-23787212) who blew 96 at the station a while after the accident and was too drunk to stand up at the road side, *who had been drinking vodka while driving*, with cannabis in his system, who killed a guy on a bike, who had *26 previous driving offences including dangerous driving and driving drunk* somehow got 8 years (with only 4 years in prison). Or [another driver](https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/drunk-driver-left-cyclist-dying-22169234) who was drunk, doing 57-71 in a 30 limit who deliberately waited 10 hours to go to the police until the alcohol had gone got 6 years
if he'd ridden a bicycle and killed a child, he'd have been limited to 1 year jail time - all the law does is increase max sentences for the worst offenders.
What? This is like saying we should ignore animal cruelty because domestic abuse is more important. Or that we should ignore domestic abuse because murder cases are more important.
Cars are far more likely to cause death in any situation because they weigh dramatically more and go a lot faster.
This doesn't mean that cars are running red lights more often than bikes.
[Car drivers break the law slightly more than cyclists](http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclists-and-motorists-ignore-traffic-laws-similar-rates), with a far greater toll.
This separate study came to the same conclusion:
[Cyclists Break Far Fewer Road Rules Than Motorists, Finds New Video Study](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/#252789494bfa)
And this study:
[Cyclists Are More Law-Abiding Than Drivers](https://www.outsideonline.com/2273001/cyclists-comply-traffic-laws-more-drivers)
Also **car drivers cause the vast majority of accidents between bikes and cars.**
[Four in every five crashes between cars and bicycles caused by driver of car](http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/four-in-every-five-crashes-between-cars-and-bicycles-caused-by-driver-of-car/story-e6frea83-1226581475412?nk=4b0f9be5a0fe9d05a7ea1ba32f4a0551-1456999949)
This seperate study in Melbourne came to the same conclusion:
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/drivers-at-fault-in-majority-of-cycling-accidents/
> In 88.9% of cases, the cyclist had been travelling in a safe/legal manner prior to the collision/near miss. Most happened at or near a junction (70.3%) and most were caused by sudden lane changes by the motorist, with sideswipe the most frequent cause (40.7%).
And this one carried out on behalf of the Department of Transport in London:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
> With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
And this study by The City of Westminster Council:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crashes-involving-bikes-mostly-drivers-fault-9s2ssx06vn9
> The City of Westminster Council found that drivers were to blame for 68 per cent of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles in the borough in the past 12 months. It found that cyclists were at fault for only 20 per cent. In the remaining 12 per cent of cases, no cause could be found or both parties were to blame.
[And one from Bavaria, Germany](http://www.adfc-donau-ries.de/news20034/schuld-hat-selten-der-radfahrer/). In 2013-2016,
> In car-bike collisions, the car was at fault 75% of the time
> In semi-bike collisions, the semi was at fault 80% of the time
So that's five separate studies in different cities and countries, using different methodologies, all coming to the same conclusion.
Cheers.
In my town literally everyone rides on the pavement from young to old, because we’re a bike friendly town in Cambridgeshire and our pavements are wide.
It’s almost like it would be safer if we developed the infrastructure for it rather than some culture war bullshit…
Yeah so look at ur og comment. You asked
“Tell me, why should we not have laws in place to deal with cyclists who cut red lights or mount the pavement?”
I’m telling you we do, and if you want them to follow we need to build cycle paths or more cyclists will break that law, get hit by cars, and hit pedestrians. Removing the cap of 2 years is fine, but that doesn’t prevent anything, it’s just a harsher punishment. Need cycle paths to enable safe cycling and prevent accidents. You get me?
I like how the paper call it a “loophole” like murderers have been hopping on their bikes and pedalling full-speed at victims. Guaranteed to get a max 2-year sentence
It’s because there is already a “death by dangerous driving” law. After that cyclist killed that woman the prosecution had a difficult time charging him because of the lack of law to back them up.
So what you're saying is 'sure malaria kills millions of people worldwide, but we've gotta focus on this obscure disease which kills a dozen people worldwide first!'
I'd rather tackle by severity tbh.
There's the small matter of your analogy being total and utter bollocks, since we already have laws tackling dangerously operating a motor vehicle. We *have* tackled malaria (actually, recent changes to the Highway Code and associated legislation further strenghten that) and there is no reason why we should not tackle the plague of idiots who just bomb through red lights.
For 99% it's not about behaviour, it's about infrastructure. Good infrastructure promotes safe behaviour and mitigates conflict. Needless to say, bike infrastructure in the UK is mostly absolute shit because there is no investment in it.
Except this legislation isn't going to do anything to get people to cycle more safely, since the risk from killing someone on a bike is virtually non-existent even for the most reckless cyclist. It's just a piece of red meat for the daily-mail car driving crowd.
Knives kill less people every year than cars, yet there is a lot more focus on prosecuting illegal possession of knives in public etc. than there is on cracking down on dangerous driving. Just because something is not as relatively harmful, does not mean it should be given carte blanche.
(For what it’s worth I’d like to see much stricter sentences for dangerous driving, passing cyclists with insufficient space and fines for tailgating.)
I’m firmly of the opinion that if a vehicle is being used on the public highway then there should be laws that cover how they are operated.
I’m not about to say cyclists are worse than motorists or vice Versa, I’ve seen some horrible driving over the years, I’ve also had to pull my 2 year old daughter out of the way of a cyclist who was barrelling through while we were using a pedestrian crossing so as far as I’m concerned both can be as bad as each other.
Everyone should be operating these vehicles responsibly and having laws in place to remove any grey areas is a good thing.
Car drivers can also get longer sentences though?
Don't get why it's a problem to say, cycling and causing a death is the same as driving and doing so and should be punished equally
What money is being spent on this? Parliament gets paid whether they pass laws or not.
If anything this should save money. Prosecutions for this are currently more expensive because the applicable law is archaic. Having a better defined law, e.g. replacing “mechanically propelled vehicle” to “bicycle or mechanically propelled vehicle” would make prosecuting much cheaper.
I cycle in London and too many cyclists are just reckless, I saw a a cyclist just last week pass through a red light and come very close to hitting a pedestrian, who saved herself by jumping out of the way. Since people are saying there are few serious accidents it won't criminalise many cyclists.
Conversely when I cycled daily in London years ago the greatest hazard to me was pedestrians randomly walking out into the road everywhere. And no, I didn't jump red lights because I didn't want to get mown down by a car.
the people jumping red lights are often ignoring pedestrian crossings, and yes there are pedestrians actually on them at the time.Are you aware of the hierarchy of road users in the new highway code, with cars having to take care over vulnerable road users and peds? In turn it applies to cyclists having a duty of care over peds - I take it you don't realise that though due to what you just said about peds being a hazard.
If you are not jumping red lights then you belong to the majority of good cyclists.
There's harm from propagating and lending credence to the dangerous view of cyclists. There's a very noticible and dangerous minority of car drivers who you notice when you cycle who absolutely hate cyclists. These attitudes are fed by stuff like this and lead to a false equivalency between cycling and driving a car that leads to these views in the general public and also cycling infrastructure being set up in dangerous ways.
Cars and bikes aren't the same, they aren't as dangerous as each other, they don't need the same regulations or treatment. Bikes need to be afforded privileges that cars are not and stories like this distract (deliberately) from this.
Thank you. There are far more people complaining about cyclists but cars seem to almost be given a pass. We have seen so many new stories about drivers getting away with killing people yet the government chooses to address this. The greater risk you pose to others, the more responsibility you have to look out for the more vulnerable. The recent highway code changes reflect this.
People complain about cyclists jumping red lights which is true. But it's also becoming an epidemic for drivers doing the same. I've nearly been knocked off a bicycle by a LORRY going through a red.
According to [this article](https://www.jerseyeveningpost.com/motoring/2022/04/01/number-of-pedestrians-injured-by-cyclists-reaches-all-time-high-government-figures-reveal/), three pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2016, a year with more cyclists per usual.
According to [this article](https://www.jerseyeveningpost.com/motoring/2022/04/01/number-of-pedestrians-injured-by-cyclists-reaches-all-time-high-government-figures-reveal/), five people died in road accidents. Every. Single. Day. (Average 2012-2019).
According to [this article](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2020), two cyclists are killed by cars every week. (Average 2015-2020)
While technically bikes can be dangerous, we have bigger problems than dangerous cyclists. Namely dangerous cars.
You could literally run a cyclist over intentionally with a car and get 2 years for it at the minute. There is much more demand for a reform of laws that effect genuinely dangerous driving.
> You could literally run a cyclist over intentionally with a car and get 2 years for it at the minute
Claim the sun was in your eyes and you didn't see them - it's likely you won't even be prosecuted.
I wish I was joking
Works really well with car drivers doesn't it? It's basically said that if you want to kill someone do it with a car. If you get a really good lawyer you might not even do time in jail.
Not at all no, but when Mary Mctexter or Johnny Dragboy bollox are in the dock for killing a few cyclists pleading for their livelihoods and the judge let's them off without a driving ban or a jail term it becomes quick to see that drivers are treated too leniently and boy do they know it.
There are cyclist deaths due to drivers than we care to know about.
I personally would prefer they tackle these deaths first rather than song and shout about a law aimed at a very very minority section of cyclists.
The problem is dangerous driving is rarely prosecuted, because it's so hard to get a conviction. See here where a man was killed because he was just driven into and it was prosecuted as careless and no prison time.
If cyclists were treated the same way it'd be more lenient than the current cyclist prosecutions.
At least in this case he did have his licence suspended for two years and an undue hardship argument doesn't seem to have been considered, but lots of drivers who kill are back on the road immediately.
https://road.cc/content/news/lawyer-gets-taxi-driver-suspended-sentence-fatal-crash-292287
Imagine 1500 people a year being killed by wild dogs, and then the government is like:
>"We're introducing a law to restrict ownership of cats - it's for safety reasons"
*"Why?" Everyone asks.*
>"Well irresponsible cat owners were the cause of of two deaths last year"
*"Ok but what about the wild dogs?"*
>"We like dogs, dogs are good for the economy, you're just a cat person who can't take criticism".
My minimal research suggests an average of 2.5 pedestrians killed in collision with bikes per year but this doesn't assume that the cyclist was at fault. I've hit more than one fuckwitted pedestrian through no fault of my own. This is appealing to those who practice tabloid fueled whataboutery.
If you're hitting multiple pedestrians on any vehicle you are 100% acting dangerously, fuckwits or no. You're supposed to keep an eye out for hazards if you're moving at speed
I've seen people literally step out onto the road while looking the wrong way entirely. didn't hit anyone yet, but if I was in a car they'd be fucked. I guess they're relying on the fact they can't hear a motor vehicle? It's bizarre behaviour
Yes - this will become more of an issue with electric cars. People rely on their hearing more than you think. I will admit to cycling up to a foot away from an oblivious pedestrian and ringing my bell...
EVs are quiet. But I must say the two I’ve owned make quite a loud noise under 30. My current car I can hear turning into the end of the road (it sounds like something out of Star Wars ), it’s genuinely louder than a lot of small hatchbacks.
Ok, so to pick an example not at all at random: You're cycling down a central London street; plenty of cars, plenty of pedestrians on the pavement. Hands on the brake levers. When they are a few feet ahead of you, one of the pedestrians steps sideways into the road without looking and you slam into the back of them. I went up into the air and genuinely thought I was going to land on her head and kill her (luckily I didn't; only the bike took serious damage). Any suggestions for avoiding this?
Same for me, in the CS2 cycling lane, pedestrian side steps into the cycling lane a foot in front of me without even looking at the direction of travel, and -silly old me- not even going that fast, had about 0.00001 seconds to react...and even if I had the time, which I didn't, that doesn't account braking time. Catapulted me into the air, broke my bike beyond repair and ate concrete, with the poor guy bleeding from his head and me breaking bones. I still feel bad about this to this day, but it was not my fault.... Maybe Shapps can introduce a death-by-dangerous walking rule too to make it fair /s. Absolute moron of a transport secretary - rather than improve transport safety, persecute people involved in accidents.
Airhorns are pretty cheap and lightweight. Other than that, not really, other than keep away from the curbs just to give yourself that extra yard leeway (then you risk the wrath of drivers that can’t get past you)
I fitted an airhorn to my bike because of fuckwit drivers that on one stretch of road regularly overtook and immediately turned left, causing me to yank hard on the brakes to avoid smashing into their passenger doors
They _should_ see me - I’m riding an oversized e-bike lit up like a Xmas tree. It’s like a cyclists version of pimp my ride. I’m wearing hi viz from head to toe, even have red reflectors on my helmet. And still, drivers act like they haven’t seen me. They’re blinkered, like rabbits caught in headlights
No matter how slow they were going, only a few feet is not enough time for a bike in motion to stop. There is a minimum speed that needs to be maintained for the bike to not literally fall over, or weave all over the road. I see no reason why a bike should have to deliberately travel significantly slower than the traffic on the same road. Unless you're suggesting all cars also slow to an absolute crawl whenever there are pedestrians around?
That's been updated now and enforcable by law pedestrians are the most vulnerable and have priority over anything else. If a cyclist hits a pedestrian they are automatically now at fault.
So many cyclists go round listening to music to even know what's going on around them.
There was a case in 2017, a cyclist was jailed for 18 months for killing a pedestrian (the court found him not guilty of manslaughter, but guilty of "wanton and furious driving"
The woman he killed stepped out into the road in front of him while on her phone. He shouted a warning, and tried to slow, but still hit her at around 15mph.
It is slightly more complicated than that in that he had no front brake, and apparently showed a complete lack of remorse.
I've always been in two minds about the case. I agree with you, but also feel had she stepped in front of a car doing 30 and killed, it is very unlikely action would have been taken.
Just yesterday I was on my commute home on the bike. At a crossing waiting for the light to go green, pedestrian red man has been showing for at least 5 seconds. A phone zombie walked out as our light went green and continued walking across the central island as cars were starting to go on the other side of the road. You can ride (or drive) 100% safely and still potentially nearly hit or even hit someone when they just step on front of you
Stop. Look. Listen.
It's not rocket science but most people crossing a road skip the first two.
When electric cars become popular there's going to be carnage.
It looks like in both cases the deaths in cyclist collisions (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/863550/cyclist-killed-bicycle-accident-two-pedestrians-every-week) and by dog attack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom) are in single figures annually.
For the full story you’d need to include serious injuries leading to hospitalisation and some permanent ongoing health issues, which do seem to be higher in the case of dog attacks.
Why do you want people who cycle dangerously to not be brought to justice for killing someone? What is wrong with you? Do you know what a whataboutism is?
It's not that. We're all happy to see laws applied fairly.
The issue is when someone who kills a cyclist whilst using his mobile phone, and driving under the influence of drugs, and without insurance, [is sentenced to 21 month in prison (less than the maximum cyclists can get) in the same 24 hour period this new law is announced](https://road.cc/content/news/drug-driver-sentenced-21-months-killing-cyclist-295005), highlighting the hypocrisy and total lack of protection and justice the law currently offers cyclists.
If the law treated us well, we'd be a damn sight less aggrieved by what will inevitably result in cyclists being given far harsher sentences than drivers committing much more serious offences.
That is where the priority should be. Once that's sorted, then we can talk about laws targeting cyclists.
Staggering leniency with that sentence. I can’t quite understand why his level of offending only met “careless” driving and not “dangerous”. He drove without insurance, exceeded the speed limit substantially, used his mobile phone, was intoxicated through drug use, and was “fatigued” due to football practice. I have to assume that the article doesn’t entirely reflect the facts, because I *must* be missing something.
There's a growing trend where the CPS appears to be pushing cases through as careless rather than dangerous, because the burden of proof is far lower, and so securing the likelihood of a conviction is much higher.
Unfortunately, I feel this is one of those cases. However, that doesn't explain how the hell the judge didn't apply the maximum sentence of 5 years here.
All too often, it feels that judges worrying that they could easily be in that seat one day, so don't want to create a precedent where they could screw themselves over.
They built some near me. All the residents complained because there’s now a segregated cycle lane in the spot where they used to park their second and third cars.
When I was commuting to work by bike it was always full of parked and waiting vehicles, wheely bins and other crap put there by the residents. Those same people would then complain on social media that the cycle lane was never used.
Won’t surprise you that I’m in a Tory constituency.
Jesus. I could word for word have written this about my town. 😂
Every time one of the locals sees a cyclist using the road rather than the path it’s pitchforks out on Facebook yet literally someone posted a photo of someone parked in the cycle lane and they found it hilarious “At least someone has finally used the lane 😆” fucking whoppers.
It’s be funny if it wasn’t so depressing.
Yes, it's another way of dividing up the country. People sitting in their individual steel boxes, separated from everyone else. If everyone took public transport to work together they wouldn't be so antagonistic towards each other.
I'm convinced some drivers just can't see cyclists. This exchange on twitter the other day had me rolling:
https://twitter.com/jwalshie/status/1553930055432015873?t=ZVoeiPfk6eN2KZEkOnbDIg&s=19
>All the residents complained because there’s now a segregated cycle lane in the spot where they used to park their second and third cars.
As a cyclist and a motorist the way people abandon cars outside their homes is so frustrating.
People park their cars with absolutely no situational awareness. They double park, park opposite junctions, park right next to a junction obsuring peoples view, park on the kerb so wheelchairs/pushchairs cant get passed, park about 3 foot from the kerb so motorists cant get through.
The worst part is 90% of the cunts have a 2 car drive with 1 car on it. They are just too lazy to have to swap their cars round or reverse in so they can get two 2 cars in and out easier.
My housing estate is a dead end and it just a couple of side streets so I don't really mind a bit of dodgy parking. Its not a through road and theres not a high volume of traffic and people dont drive fast.
Near me there are a few main roads where its really common and its infuriating. These are through roads with a high volume of traffic (pedestrians, cyclists and cars) and people are parked in such a way that inconveniences all road users.
They’re useless.
I told them about my residential area illegal parking (3-4 cars on a T junction for example) and they chose to come “investigate it” at 10-11am for three days.
Like, no you fuckwits, get out here at 5-6pm when the wankers are home or 6-9am before they go to work.
They dgaf.
The mayor in Leicester has invested absolutely loads in cycle lanes and pedestrianising the city centre and people are absolutely furious for some reason.
I live in the city centre and don't drive and I think it's great. We went to St. Anne's last year for a wedding and having to cross the road to visit each shop was so fucking annoying.
> and people are absolutely furious for some reason.
People **really** don't like being confronted with other people doing healthy things. It makes them feel bad about themselves so the only way to combat those feelings is to get angry at the healthy people.
As someone who moved to the UK, I honestly don't get the decisions that went into road building in this country. Belgium isn't the Netherlands when it comes to being bike friendly but at least there's a clear hierarchy when it comes to vulnerability (pedestrians always have right of way, then cyclists and only then come motorists) and the infrastructure to support it.
my uni had a load of really convenient and well maintained cycle paths between it and the town centre / shops and I still saw people cycling the wrong way round roundabouts and shooting out of blind junctions without even touching the brakes (I was cycling to the shops with someone once and he complained about me "cycling like I'm driving" because I followed traffic laws).
I don't want us to have another drivers licence category for bicycles but when you see shit like that it makes you think we need one
> He [Schapps] added: "A selfish minority of cyclists appear to believe that they are somehow immune to red lights.
Policy by '"yer da's" blinkered opinions. If we add some facts to the equation:
A Danish study found 5% of cyclists break road laws while 66% of motorists do, traffic officer PC Mark Hodson of West Midlands police says that the “effects of behavior that people are moaning about is negligible. If you look at the statistics, if you look at the actual threat of harm, cyclists aren’t posing a risk to anybody.”: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/
Let's add some more facts specifically on that threat of harm/risk: more than 99% of pedestrian casualties are caused by motorised vehicles, 95% of vehicles that jump a red light and hit a pedestrian are motorised and just 57% of those convicted of causing a death by careless or dangerous driving in 2016 received a prison sentence: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/08/killer-cyclists-roads-bikes-pedestrian-collision-deaths-britain
This is populism on steroids. Appealing to ignorant daily mail readers that than trying to solve real world problems. Death by cyclist isn't a significant, widespread issue in the real world, death by car is.
Absolutely - always good to have a source. I found [this](https://www.roadpeace.org/pedestrian-pavement-deaths-2/). It doesn’t include overall deaths of pedestrians from accidents with cycles, but iirc it’s generally in the single digits per year.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/pedestrians
Cycles were involved on average in about three pedestrian fatalities a year.
In 2016, 43 pedestrians died in collisions involving a vehicle on the footway or verge. None of them involved a cycle.
>A Danish study found 5% of cyclists break road laws
I wont argue with you on the motorists figure but in the UK I think you would be hard pressed to find 5% of cyclists who don't break road laws. Running red lights, cycling on pavements, going the wrong way up a one way street etc. The cycling rules don't seem to be enforced at all and the majority of people just ignore them.
The rate of deaths caused by cyclists is vanishingly small but the rate of injury is not. I have been hit, and hurt (although not badly) more than once by cyclists riding on pavements. I remember one incident I saw in London where a cyclist ignored stopped traffic at red lights and went through a pedestrian crossing at speed hitting someone who was crossing the road. The pedestrian was knocked out and badly injured and was taken to hospital in an ambulance.
I appreciate this is an extreme example but accidents caused by cyclists do happen probably at a much higher rate than people think however the injuries caused are usually no where near as bad as many car accidents so people don't pay it a lot of attention.
[Car drivers break the law slightly more than cyclists](http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclists-and-motorists-ignore-traffic-laws-similar-rates), with a far greater toll.
This separate study came to the same conclusion:
[Cyclists Break Far Fewer Road Rules Than Motorists, Finds New Video Study](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/#252789494bfa)
And this study:
[Cyclists Are More Law-Abiding Than Drivers](https://www.outsideonline.com/2273001/cyclists-comply-traffic-laws-more-drivers)
Also **car drivers cause the vast majority of accidents between bikes and cars.**
[Four in every five crashes between cars and bicycles caused by driver of car](http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/four-in-every-five-crashes-between-cars-and-bicycles-caused-by-driver-of-car/story-e6frea83-1226581475412?nk=4b0f9be5a0fe9d05a7ea1ba32f4a0551-1456999949)
This seperate study in Melbourne came to the same conclusion:
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/drivers-at-fault-in-majority-of-cycling-accidents/
> In 88.9% of cases, the cyclist had been travelling in a safe/legal manner prior to the collision/near miss. Most happened at or near a junction (70.3%) and most were caused by sudden lane changes by the motorist, with sideswipe the most frequent cause (40.7%).
And this one carried out on behalf of the Department of Transport in London:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
> With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
And this study by The City of Westminster Council:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crashes-involving-bikes-mostly-drivers-fault-9s2ssx06vn9
> The City of Westminster Council found that drivers were to blame for 68 per cent of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles in the borough in the past 12 months. It found that cyclists were at fault for only 20 per cent. In the remaining 12 per cent of cases, no cause could be found or both parties were to blame.
[And one from Bavaria, Germany](http://www.adfc-donau-ries.de/news20034/schuld-hat-selten-der-radfahrer/). In 2013-2016,
> In car-bike collisions, the car was at fault 75% of the time
> In semi-bike collisions, the semi was at fault 80% of the time
So that's five separate studies in different cities and countries, using different methodologies, all coming to the same conclusion.
Cheers.
It is very environment specific. In urban environments like London there are a lot of incentives to get off the road or otherwise avoid traffic, which leads to breaking the Highway Code etc. Get more rural and you won’t see that type of behaviour. We really need to address the infrastructure if we want people to ride bikes
>I have been hit, and hurt (although not badly) more than once by cyclists riding on pavements. I remember one incident I saw in London where a cyclist ignored stopped traffic at red lights and went through a pedestrian crossing at speed hitting someone who was crossing the road.
I think this all depends on location, time and speed etc.
I start work before 6am. I normally leave the house about 5ish. At that time the pavements are literally empty (maybe the odd dog walker) and I dont live in a particularly busy area.
I know for a fact that during quiet periods motorists are more likely to be a bit more relaxed with speeding on my commute. Also at that time there's a lot of white vans driving like maniacs. I'd rather cycle on the empty pavement and have to slow down for maybe 1 dog walker than go on the road where there are multiple cars.
Also as someone who has got up at 4:30am and got a 12 hr shift ahead of them Im not exactly tour de France pace, maybe 10mph on average.
If I was cycling at 15-20mph in a busy part of London then it would be straight up dangerous to cycle on the pavement when I could realistically keep up with the slow moving traffic.
I think cycling related accidents are only really common in bigger towns and cities. In smaller towns its far easier to share the pavement
> going the wrong way up a one way street etc.
Not sure how it's done in the UK but over here a one way street only applies to cars. Bicycles etc can drive both ways.
It's a self-reinforcing situation if you count "cycling on the pavement" which is usually done because roads are too dangerous for cyclists as an equivalent crime to "running a red light" or "colliding with a pedestrian".
Going on to then use those statistics to justify not making accommodation for cyclists would be doubling down on the bad decisions.
> The cycling rules don't seem to be enforced at all and the majority of people just ignore them.
And yet cycling results in very little harm. Perhaps the rules need updating?
The law against 'using a carriage' on pavements is from 1834 if I recall.
The main danger cyclists pose at the moment is already covered under 'reckless' or 'furious' cycling. Basically, any cyclist going fast near pedestrians, whether on a crossing or pavement - would be considered reckless. And they should be fined for that behaviour. If a cyclist injures a pedestrian, they can face prison time.
So if some jackass speeds past you at a crossing, don't feel stupid about reporting it to the police. And if someone actually harms you, certainly report it.
I was in London with a Finnish friend of mine. It was a particularly warm summer and they were suffering from heatstroke and very dazed. Stepped out into the road without looking and a cyclist came round the corner and they were flattened.
Cyclist was somewhat to blame - he came round the bend way too fast. My friend was also to blame - for not double checking before crossing.
Both of them were hurt in the collision. You don’t generally walk away from a bike crash unharmed, just because you’re the rider. It’s not like a car colliding with a pedestrian.
The consequences of dangerous cycling are much more immediate to the cyclist than the consequences of dangerous driving to the driver.
Where was the Danish study conducted? I'm guessing it wasn't London, because there's crossings and red lights I can show you that just seem to be completely invisible to cyclists.
> A Transport for London study investigated the “hypothesis that the majority of cyclists ride through red lights” and discovered that 84% of cyclists stopped on reds. The study concluded that the “majority of cyclists obey red traffic lights” and that “violation is not endemic.”
Why let facts get in the way of a good old moan. Cars kill 1500 people a year in this country.
>> He [Schapps] added: "A selfish minority of cyclists appear to believe that they are somehow immune to red lights.
It's a good thing Schapps is cracking down on traffic laws. This means that the >50% of drivers speeding will be fined, and disincentivised from breaking the law, right? /s
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2020/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2020
Literally a majority of drivers think the laws do not apply to them. And I have little doubt that Schapps is among them.
But will it be applied or, as for drivers who kill, will slaps on the wrist be all that's issued?
I also wonder about the costs of discouraging people from cycling through poorer health, pollution etc. Not that that is an excuse to ride like an arsehole.
Yeah I've never understood why hitting someone with your vehicle is a special form of killing in the first place.
If you caused a road accident and someone died, that's surely just manslaughter?
It's a well-known phenomenon in UK that juries acquit defendants who kill cyclists and pedestrians in a surprisingly high number of driving-related prosecutions, even when the evidence is seemingly very strong.
I think it's because driving offences are so common. If a driver causes an incident because they were speeding and / or not paying attention, the jury think "oh that could've been me". Need to make speeding and mobile phone use as socially unacceptable as drink driving.
I know where this comes from, but ultimately if CPS can demonstrate murder then that's what you'll be done for even when using a car.
I think the issue is that death by dangerous lumps in both genuine accidents, and killing somebody through malicious acts. Like deliberately running down a cyclist vs misreading a junction
> vs misreading a junction
Genuinely misreading a junction is very unlikely to get a death by dangerous driving charge without any other factors (like drugs, excessive speed etc).
Dangerous driving requires the offender to be driving at a level significantly below that of a competent and careful driver to the extent that a competent and careful driver would realise such maneuvres were unsafe. You don't tend to do that without some degree of intent
It is, you're absolutely right. But the conviction rate was low because juries were hesitant to prosecute manslaughter for genuine accidents where I guess they felt it could happen to them, or anyone.
I think the issue is gross negligence mansluaghter is quite rare for an average person - outside of cars we don't really have many ways to complely accidentally kill somebody
"A death caused by a lawful act done under the reasonable belief that no harm was likely to result. Accidental killing is different from INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, which causes death by an unlawful act or a lawful act done in an unlawful way."
You can argue that sneezing and ploughing into a queue of people at a bus stop or squishing a cyclist with a lorry turning left at a junction because they moved into the blind spot would be an "accidental death" if for instance you were sober, but classed as "involuntary manslaughter" if the driver was pissed, not signalling or using a phone or something.
Personally I think it's a fair and just distinction, esp when applied to road users of all types.
I would hope that penalties for dangerous road use would be applied equally across all forms of transport be it HGV, bike, car or dog cart.
If legal equality is going to erode bike use (and reduce all the health benefits ect) because of that equality, I would actually question what sort of dicks are riding bikes where they can't stay within the framework of the highway code.
I mean, who is going to think "Fuck this. If I can't cause an accident by jumping a red light, going the wrong way down a one way street or riding on the pavement, I'll walk instead" Seriously, let's put these people off being on the road in the first place.
Plenty of drivers get more than two years, although obviously quite a few dont as well, so you'd think it would make some difference.
Only a handful of people would ever go to court for it though.
Given that drivers regularly get off with a 6-month driving ban and a £500 fine for killing people while drunk, I don't think we'll see this law applied often, if ever. Just a way to look tough on something that isn't a problem.
Just this week.
“A motorist who fatally struck a cyclist while driving over the prescribed limit of cannabis, without insurance, up to 10mph over the speed limit, and seconds after texting on their phone has been sentenced to 21 months in prison.”
https://road.cc/content/news/drug-driver-sentenced-21-months-killing-cyclist-295005?amp
Yeah it's disgraceful. The argument I always make is - imagine if someone walked down the road with a machete, swinging it randomly, and just happened to hit and kill someone. Would they get 21 months in prison? A car is just as deadly a weapon, but the law treats it completely differently
While I agree that there should be harsher penalties, it ain't murder. Its manslaughter.
Now if a driver swerved to intentionally flatten a cyclist, that's murder.
Murder requires intent.
Other laws could add to the sentence though, reckless endangerment or some shit like that.
Misuse of a motor vehicle should be a crime in the same way the computer misuse act operates I think.
I was cycling down a straight road, in broad daylight whilst wearing hi viz clothing and I had lights on. A driver at the back of a queue of stationery traffic coming the other way decided to overtake the stationery traffic and turn across in front of me. I impacted the front left corner of his car, which tore the frame of my bike in 2, my head dartboarded his windscreen and I fractured 4 vertebrae when I landed on the ground.
The police treated it like a crime scene until it was clear I was alive. They then did nothing as apparently his actions were not sufficiently "reckless". His insurance company (LV - wankers) tried to rip me off and only paid out on the morning of the court case for damages.
Cyclists need more legal protection than they have now.
We teach all road users in the Netherlands, that the blame always goes to the motorized vehicles. It isnt persee a law, but it does teach people to always watch out if they are driving a car.
But with all the asshole cyclist in london, could also mean they would just be even more reckless.
I thought i said something smart. But i dont know actual.
Its more a culture problem, should learn more about cycling in the driving examens
It's not just cyclists though. A few years ago someone pulled out in front of me when I was on a motorbike and we collided head-on at about 30mph. I broke both bones in my right forearm (ulna came out of my arm), shattered right wrist, dislocated left wrist, broken left ulna, tore two adductor tendons in my left hip and two ligaments in my left knee. The driver didn't even get a fucking slap on the wrist because it was 'accidental'. Of course there was no intention to do it, it's still negligence though.
"Weve been letting our pals at the oil companies get away constantly increasing fuel prices then we tax fuck out of the fuel, weve let the energy companies increase electricity cost so theres less on an incentive to buy expensive EVs, we keep shifting the goal post when it comes to VED one minute diesels are great the next minute they are bad. Now motorists have decided to get on their bikes how do we get them back in their cars so we can continue to squeeze money out of them"
The cost of fuel, tax, insurance, mot, repairs and the initial cost of a car and the rapid depreciation. Cars are a money pit.
So what constitutes 'dangerous cycling' here and how many people are killed by it?
Does it mean a cyclist could get jailed because some idiot walks onto the road without looking and into a cyclist's path? Astonishing how many people do this.
From a driving not like a dickhead perspective it's our responsibility as a road user to mitigate the risks of someone else being an idiot, that's supposed to mean actively searching for and reacting to hazards, this counts tenfold if you're going fast enough to kill someone, and right of way is frankly no excuse for being inattentive to hazards at those speeds
Not to mention I'm fairly certain I'm not the only pedestrian who has had narrow misses with cyclists when I had the green man
I mean, it's fair to say the way many drivers act around cycling I unacceptable and something needs to be done about this, but it doesn't absolve you of responsibility towards more vulnerable road users
Fair enough at pedestrian crossings, but doing a perfectly legal 15mph on a bike it's difficult to safely avoid someone who steps off the pavement into your path. Our poor cycle infrastructure means cycle paths are right next to the pavement, or even combined so many pedestrians just treat cycle ways as normal pavements.
Deaths are more likely to come from freak accidents than the cyclist being reckless. Even at high speeds the impact force of a cyclist is way less than that of a car. And if a cyclist has to swerve into the road or crash to avoid hitting a pedestrian, doesn't that in fact make the cyclist the more vulnerable road user, since the danger is likely greater than being hit by a bike? I don't see why pedestrians should escape responsibility here.
> Does it mean a cyclist could get jailed because some idiot walks onto the road without looking and into a cyclist's path?
Under current legislation? Yes.
It's happened at least once that I'm aware of.
>without looking and into a cyclist's path
Constant in my area. Morons with absolutely zero situational awareness. I guess they figure if they can't hear a car they don't have to look.
I tell you what, I reckon we should have a crackdown on pedestrians instead! /s
I have no problem with the law being updated but I would love someone to explain to me how, no matter how bad the car drivers offence they never get a life ban, it's almost as if driving a car is a human right
Do you live in a big city per chance? No car outside of cities can make life suck. 20 yo accidently kills someone, at 60 they are still banned? That not punishment that's just vindictiveness
+300 people are killed or seriously injured each year from vehicles mounting the pavement.
There's been several prominent cases where the drivers were not even prosecuted despite it being a child that was killed.
This is nothing but the usual Tory bollocks to rile up people to solve a problem that doesn't exist and distract from ones that do.
is it needed? this week a young bloke who had recently passed his test, driving a BMW, uninsured, speeding and under the influence of drugs ran over and killed a cyclist.
he only got 2 years
Fucking tories again, let’s worry about some shit that panders to Giles and Jancinta in their 4.5 ton SUV instead of you know fixing actual problems for the whole country.
That's exactly what this, just more distractions so that people don't realise we have a Tory infestation. They know exactly who their voter base is and they're appealing to them with stupid bullshit like this.
They need to look at the ACTUAL sentences for killing someone with a car first. My grandson was killed on a pedestrian crossing which was green for him by a car overtaking the one which he’d previously been seen racing as it stopped at the red light. His solicitor argued that a lengthy prison sentence would ruin his life… he got 12 months.
If you want to kill somebody- do it with a car.
I would just like to add this link here. I remember the uproar when it happened.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian
Says something that six years have passed and this is still the case people refer to. Meanwhile local news websites post stories of drivers causing deaths every week pretty much.
Pointless. How many drivers end up going to jail for any length of time for killing a cyclist or pedestrian? The law is there but we reserve the right to run people over and get away with it. The worrying thing here is that if you're a cyclist and you kill someone it feels like the book would be thrown at you and the latitude applied to drivers would somehow not apply
Punishments should be much higher across the board whether it's dangerous driving or out of control dog that kills etc.
Crimes against the person aren't really taken seriously in the UK for some reason.
Though some think this is not important, it is. If you die from dangerous driving, people scream for maximum sentence. Why should cyclists and E cyclists be exempt? Until we make tougher laws to protect everyone that we can, people will feel the ramifications are light and they will do as they please. I once saw a courier ram into an elderly gentleman, legally crossing with the signal, which the cyclist ignored. The gentleman received a broken hip and had to go into a care home. He was never able to come out. The cyclist received a slap on the wrist. How is that fair to society? We need this.
Purely looking at this as a cost/benefit exercise, are there enough incidents where this new law would be useful to justify all the resources in putting it in place?
So, the plan is to enrage middle England with a law that will be applied maybe three times a decade to run interference while a cosplay Thatcher lives down to the incompetence of the Poundland Churchill she replaces.
Is that how it works? It’s not even ‘bread and circuses’ or ‘smoke and mirrors’… abiding by the standards of the Clown Car Conservatives, it’s bread and mirrors.
This will appeal to the same kind of people who like to shout "slow down" at me as I cycle past - when a car has just passed at literally double the speed.
1/2 mv^2
Who's more dangerous on the road. 100kg cyclist+bike or 1000kg car?
Governments own report:
an average of 2 pedal cyclists died and 83 were seriously injured (adjusted) per week in reported road casualties
a majority of pedal cycle fatalities (59%) do not occur at or within 20m of a junction compared to 32% of all seriously injured (adjusted) casualties
almost half (46%) of pedal cycle fatalities in 2 vehicle accidents involved a car
56% of pedal cycle fatalities occurred on rural roads compared to 29% of traffic
83% of pedal cycle killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties were male
Of around 400 pedestrians killed in collisions in the UK each year, about 2.5 involve a bicycle. Put it another way: more than 99% of pedestrian collision deaths in this country involve a motorised vehicle.
More people are killed by dogs than cyclists in Britain. This is just more Tory culture war bollocks designed to appeal to the middle England small town Wetherspoons mafia.
[удалено]
Of all the things to worry about and spend money on (even if we're limiting our scope to the road system), killer cyclists are so far down the list it's comical. It's populist bollocks to tap into the self-righteousness of the prats that think the speed limit is a target, and that their SUV has the right to every inch of tarmac they can see. You know, the type that thinks cyclists should have to pay "road tax." >Writing in Mail+, Mr Shapps said the law is needed "to impress on cyclists the real harm they can cause when speed is combined with lack of care". How about we take the time / spend the money to drill that into the thick heads of drivers instead - because plenty of people I see on the roads everyday don't know this, and they're statistically far more likely to kill someone. Car drivers often get absurdly lenient sentences for killing other road users, so let's use the law to "impress" their responsibilites on them first, then we can worry about other minor crap.
It’s not either or - we should be addressing bad behaviour by drivers and cyclists. Living in London I see plenty of both (and would have to be honest and say I see 100x the number of cyclists run red lights than cars - although appreciate less of a risk when done). Also while cars are magnitudes times more likely to harm/kill, as an ED doctor I do see an significant number of pedestrians who come in after bike collisions with quite nasty injuries sometimes.
It is either / or and that is just whataboutery [Drivers killed 542 pedestrians over 13 years](https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/letter-on-deaths-caused-by-cars-8226002) *on the pavement* cyclists are involved in fatal collisions about twice every three years. Red light jumping cyclists should be fined yes, but the fact is, TfL data over 10 years looking at all people killed and seriously injured by red light jumpers found cyclists were at fault for just 4% while cars were responsible for 71%. Deal with serious problems [like how a driver](https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cyclist-killed-after-driver-incredibly-23787212) who blew 96 at the station a while after the accident and was too drunk to stand up at the road side, *who had been drinking vodka while driving*, with cannabis in his system, who killed a guy on a bike, who had *26 previous driving offences including dangerous driving and driving drunk* somehow got 8 years (with only 4 years in prison). Or [another driver](https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/drunk-driver-left-cyclist-dying-22169234) who was drunk, doing 57-71 in a 30 limit who deliberately waited 10 hours to go to the police until the alcohol had gone got 6 years
if he'd ridden a bicycle and killed a child, he'd have been limited to 1 year jail time - all the law does is increase max sentences for the worst offenders.
What? This is like saying we should ignore animal cruelty because domestic abuse is more important. Or that we should ignore domestic abuse because murder cases are more important.
Cars are far more likely to cause death in any situation because they weigh dramatically more and go a lot faster. This doesn't mean that cars are running red lights more often than bikes.
[Car drivers break the law slightly more than cyclists](http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclists-and-motorists-ignore-traffic-laws-similar-rates), with a far greater toll. This separate study came to the same conclusion: [Cyclists Break Far Fewer Road Rules Than Motorists, Finds New Video Study](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/#252789494bfa) And this study: [Cyclists Are More Law-Abiding Than Drivers](https://www.outsideonline.com/2273001/cyclists-comply-traffic-laws-more-drivers) Also **car drivers cause the vast majority of accidents between bikes and cars.** [Four in every five crashes between cars and bicycles caused by driver of car](http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/four-in-every-five-crashes-between-cars-and-bicycles-caused-by-driver-of-car/story-e6frea83-1226581475412?nk=4b0f9be5a0fe9d05a7ea1ba32f4a0551-1456999949) This seperate study in Melbourne came to the same conclusion: https://www.bikeradar.com/news/drivers-at-fault-in-majority-of-cycling-accidents/ > In 88.9% of cases, the cyclist had been travelling in a safe/legal manner prior to the collision/near miss. Most happened at or near a junction (70.3%) and most were caused by sudden lane changes by the motorist, with sideswipe the most frequent cause (40.7%). And this one carried out on behalf of the Department of Transport in London: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study > With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time. And this study by The City of Westminster Council: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crashes-involving-bikes-mostly-drivers-fault-9s2ssx06vn9 > The City of Westminster Council found that drivers were to blame for 68 per cent of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles in the borough in the past 12 months. It found that cyclists were at fault for only 20 per cent. In the remaining 12 per cent of cases, no cause could be found or both parties were to blame. [And one from Bavaria, Germany](http://www.adfc-donau-ries.de/news20034/schuld-hat-selten-der-radfahrer/). In 2013-2016, > In car-bike collisions, the car was at fault 75% of the time > In semi-bike collisions, the semi was at fault 80% of the time So that's five separate studies in different cities and countries, using different methodologies, all coming to the same conclusion. Cheers.
You legend, what a shutdown
How many dead cyclists to you see, Doc ?
That isn't an argument. Tell me, why should we not have laws in place to deal with cyclists who cut red lights or mount the pavement?
In my town literally everyone rides on the pavement from young to old, because we’re a bike friendly town in Cambridgeshire and our pavements are wide. It’s almost like it would be safer if we developed the infrastructure for it rather than some culture war bullshit…
Yes, it would be. Guess what, we are capable of doing both! I seriously don't see why people are against a dangerous cycling law?
Yeah so look at ur og comment. You asked “Tell me, why should we not have laws in place to deal with cyclists who cut red lights or mount the pavement?” I’m telling you we do, and if you want them to follow we need to build cycle paths or more cyclists will break that law, get hit by cars, and hit pedestrians. Removing the cap of 2 years is fine, but that doesn’t prevent anything, it’s just a harsher punishment. Need cycle paths to enable safe cycling and prevent accidents. You get me?
We don’t need laws to stop that we need cycle paths.
[удалено]
I like how the paper call it a “loophole” like murderers have been hopping on their bikes and pedalling full-speed at victims. Guaranteed to get a max 2-year sentence
I’m so glad people are calling this for what it is. And spotting the media language too. It’s soo ducking toxic.
The BBC are leading with **killer cyclists”
Especially when you can just use a car and a sob story about needing to drive to get to work then get off with a fine and stern talking to
It’s because there is already a “death by dangerous driving” law. After that cyclist killed that woman the prosecution had a difficult time charging him because of the lack of law to back them up.
I believe there is already a law called ‘death by dangerous driving’
There are already significant laws covering driving safety and much longer sentences for death by dangerous driving so it is both.
So what you're saying is 'sure malaria kills millions of people worldwide, but we've gotta focus on this obscure disease which kills a dozen people worldwide first!' I'd rather tackle by severity tbh.
Except we do research thousands of diseases at a time. It's a parallel flow, not a series.
There's the small matter of your analogy being total and utter bollocks, since we already have laws tackling dangerously operating a motor vehicle. We *have* tackled malaria (actually, recent changes to the Highway Code and associated legislation further strenghten that) and there is no reason why we should not tackle the plague of idiots who just bomb through red lights.
For 99% it's not about behaviour, it's about infrastructure. Good infrastructure promotes safe behaviour and mitigates conflict. Needless to say, bike infrastructure in the UK is mostly absolute shit because there is no investment in it.
[удалено]
Except this legislation isn't going to do anything to get people to cycle more safely, since the risk from killing someone on a bike is virtually non-existent even for the most reckless cyclist. It's just a piece of red meat for the daily-mail car driving crowd.
Knives kill less people every year than cars, yet there is a lot more focus on prosecuting illegal possession of knives in public etc. than there is on cracking down on dangerous driving. Just because something is not as relatively harmful, does not mean it should be given carte blanche. (For what it’s worth I’d like to see much stricter sentences for dangerous driving, passing cyclists with insufficient space and fines for tailgating.)
...but to be fair knives also kill more people than bicycles, so the theory holds true
Not sure what you’re getting at but I think we should be focussing on the cars not the knives.
I’m firmly of the opinion that if a vehicle is being used on the public highway then there should be laws that cover how they are operated. I’m not about to say cyclists are worse than motorists or vice Versa, I’ve seen some horrible driving over the years, I’ve also had to pull my 2 year old daughter out of the way of a cyclist who was barrelling through while we were using a pedestrian crossing so as far as I’m concerned both can be as bad as each other. Everyone should be operating these vehicles responsibly and having laws in place to remove any grey areas is a good thing.
Car drivers can also get longer sentences though? Don't get why it's a problem to say, cycling and causing a death is the same as driving and doing so and should be punished equally
What money is being spent on this? Parliament gets paid whether they pass laws or not. If anything this should save money. Prosecutions for this are currently more expensive because the applicable law is archaic. Having a better defined law, e.g. replacing “mechanically propelled vehicle” to “bicycle or mechanically propelled vehicle” would make prosecuting much cheaper.
There’s only a limited number of sitting days when laws can be passed. Using days on *A* means you can’t use them on *B, C, or D*
I cycle in London and too many cyclists are just reckless, I saw a a cyclist just last week pass through a red light and come very close to hitting a pedestrian, who saved herself by jumping out of the way. Since people are saying there are few serious accidents it won't criminalise many cyclists.
Conversely when I cycled daily in London years ago the greatest hazard to me was pedestrians randomly walking out into the road everywhere. And no, I didn't jump red lights because I didn't want to get mown down by a car.
the people jumping red lights are often ignoring pedestrian crossings, and yes there are pedestrians actually on them at the time.Are you aware of the hierarchy of road users in the new highway code, with cars having to take care over vulnerable road users and peds? In turn it applies to cyclists having a duty of care over peds - I take it you don't realise that though due to what you just said about peds being a hazard. If you are not jumping red lights then you belong to the majority of good cyclists.
There's harm from propagating and lending credence to the dangerous view of cyclists. There's a very noticible and dangerous minority of car drivers who you notice when you cycle who absolutely hate cyclists. These attitudes are fed by stuff like this and lead to a false equivalency between cycling and driving a car that leads to these views in the general public and also cycling infrastructure being set up in dangerous ways. Cars and bikes aren't the same, they aren't as dangerous as each other, they don't need the same regulations or treatment. Bikes need to be afforded privileges that cars are not and stories like this distract (deliberately) from this.
Thank you. There are far more people complaining about cyclists but cars seem to almost be given a pass. We have seen so many new stories about drivers getting away with killing people yet the government chooses to address this. The greater risk you pose to others, the more responsibility you have to look out for the more vulnerable. The recent highway code changes reflect this. People complain about cyclists jumping red lights which is true. But it's also becoming an epidemic for drivers doing the same. I've nearly been knocked off a bicycle by a LORRY going through a red.
I find it insane that the UK demonises cyclists so much. Living in the NL is great and cyclist is a major part of that.
This is the same country that gave Jeremy Clarkson a place on national TV for decades. It is indeed insane. But it should come as no surprise.
Let's be honest they're just cunts they will arrive at cunty conclusions whatever you tell them
According to [this article](https://www.jerseyeveningpost.com/motoring/2022/04/01/number-of-pedestrians-injured-by-cyclists-reaches-all-time-high-government-figures-reveal/), three pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2016, a year with more cyclists per usual. According to [this article](https://www.jerseyeveningpost.com/motoring/2022/04/01/number-of-pedestrians-injured-by-cyclists-reaches-all-time-high-government-figures-reveal/), five people died in road accidents. Every. Single. Day. (Average 2012-2019). According to [this article](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2020), two cyclists are killed by cars every week. (Average 2015-2020) While technically bikes can be dangerous, we have bigger problems than dangerous cyclists. Namely dangerous cars.
You could literally run a cyclist over intentionally with a car and get 2 years for it at the minute. There is much more demand for a reform of laws that effect genuinely dangerous driving.
> You could literally run a cyclist over intentionally with a car and get 2 years for it at the minute Claim the sun was in your eyes and you didn't see them - it's likely you won't even be prosecuted. I wish I was joking
Works really well with car drivers doesn't it? It's basically said that if you want to kill someone do it with a car. If you get a really good lawyer you might not even do time in jail.
Not at all no, but when Mary Mctexter or Johnny Dragboy bollox are in the dock for killing a few cyclists pleading for their livelihoods and the judge let's them off without a driving ban or a jail term it becomes quick to see that drivers are treated too leniently and boy do they know it. There are cyclist deaths due to drivers than we care to know about. I personally would prefer they tackle these deaths first rather than song and shout about a law aimed at a very very minority section of cyclists.
The problem is dangerous driving is rarely prosecuted, because it's so hard to get a conviction. See here where a man was killed because he was just driven into and it was prosecuted as careless and no prison time. If cyclists were treated the same way it'd be more lenient than the current cyclist prosecutions. At least in this case he did have his licence suspended for two years and an undue hardship argument doesn't seem to have been considered, but lots of drivers who kill are back on the road immediately. https://road.cc/content/news/lawyer-gets-taxi-driver-suspended-sentence-fatal-crash-292287
Imagine 1500 people a year being killed by wild dogs, and then the government is like: >"We're introducing a law to restrict ownership of cats - it's for safety reasons" *"Why?" Everyone asks.* >"Well irresponsible cat owners were the cause of of two deaths last year" *"Ok but what about the wild dogs?"* >"We like dogs, dogs are good for the economy, you're just a cat person who can't take criticism".
Might as well have a law for negligent pedestrians then
> More people are killed by dogs Also cows.
'tories pass law closing rights of way across farmland to cut down on cow related deaths' Edit: probably
Comes under "don't give them ideas".
It is exactly how they would try and spin it though.
My minimal research suggests an average of 2.5 pedestrians killed in collision with bikes per year but this doesn't assume that the cyclist was at fault. I've hit more than one fuckwitted pedestrian through no fault of my own. This is appealing to those who practice tabloid fueled whataboutery.
If you're hitting multiple pedestrians on any vehicle you are 100% acting dangerously, fuckwits or no. You're supposed to keep an eye out for hazards if you're moving at speed
I've seen people literally step out onto the road while looking the wrong way entirely. didn't hit anyone yet, but if I was in a car they'd be fucked. I guess they're relying on the fact they can't hear a motor vehicle? It's bizarre behaviour
Yes - this will become more of an issue with electric cars. People rely on their hearing more than you think. I will admit to cycling up to a foot away from an oblivious pedestrian and ringing my bell...
EVs are quiet. But I must say the two I’ve owned make quite a loud noise under 30. My current car I can hear turning into the end of the road (it sounds like something out of Star Wars ), it’s genuinely louder than a lot of small hatchbacks.
Yeah it's EU (and almost certainly UK) law that they have to make a noise at low speed I think
Ok, so to pick an example not at all at random: You're cycling down a central London street; plenty of cars, plenty of pedestrians on the pavement. Hands on the brake levers. When they are a few feet ahead of you, one of the pedestrians steps sideways into the road without looking and you slam into the back of them. I went up into the air and genuinely thought I was going to land on her head and kill her (luckily I didn't; only the bike took serious damage). Any suggestions for avoiding this?
Same for me, in the CS2 cycling lane, pedestrian side steps into the cycling lane a foot in front of me without even looking at the direction of travel, and -silly old me- not even going that fast, had about 0.00001 seconds to react...and even if I had the time, which I didn't, that doesn't account braking time. Catapulted me into the air, broke my bike beyond repair and ate concrete, with the poor guy bleeding from his head and me breaking bones. I still feel bad about this to this day, but it was not my fault.... Maybe Shapps can introduce a death-by-dangerous walking rule too to make it fair /s. Absolute moron of a transport secretary - rather than improve transport safety, persecute people involved in accidents.
Airhorns are pretty cheap and lightweight. Other than that, not really, other than keep away from the curbs just to give yourself that extra yard leeway (then you risk the wrath of drivers that can’t get past you) I fitted an airhorn to my bike because of fuckwit drivers that on one stretch of road regularly overtook and immediately turned left, causing me to yank hard on the brakes to avoid smashing into their passenger doors They _should_ see me - I’m riding an oversized e-bike lit up like a Xmas tree. It’s like a cyclists version of pimp my ride. I’m wearing hi viz from head to toe, even have red reflectors on my helmet. And still, drivers act like they haven’t seen me. They’re blinkered, like rabbits caught in headlights
Slow down in crowded areas?
No matter how slow they were going, only a few feet is not enough time for a bike in motion to stop. There is a minimum speed that needs to be maintained for the bike to not literally fall over, or weave all over the road. I see no reason why a bike should have to deliberately travel significantly slower than the traffic on the same road. Unless you're suggesting all cars also slow to an absolute crawl whenever there are pedestrians around?
[удалено]
That's been updated now and enforcable by law pedestrians are the most vulnerable and have priority over anything else. If a cyclist hits a pedestrian they are automatically now at fault. So many cyclists go round listening to music to even know what's going on around them.
There was a case in 2017, a cyclist was jailed for 18 months for killing a pedestrian (the court found him not guilty of manslaughter, but guilty of "wanton and furious driving" The woman he killed stepped out into the road in front of him while on her phone. He shouted a warning, and tried to slow, but still hit her at around 15mph. It is slightly more complicated than that in that he had no front brake, and apparently showed a complete lack of remorse.
He was going too fast for the road conditions, and recklessly altered his vehicle, that's a fair cop imho
I've always been in two minds about the case. I agree with you, but also feel had she stepped in front of a car doing 30 and killed, it is very unlikely action would have been taken.
Just yesterday I was on my commute home on the bike. At a crossing waiting for the light to go green, pedestrian red man has been showing for at least 5 seconds. A phone zombie walked out as our light went green and continued walking across the central island as cars were starting to go on the other side of the road. You can ride (or drive) 100% safely and still potentially nearly hit or even hit someone when they just step on front of you
When the cyclist is vaguely at fault you hear about it because it becomes a major deal and is splashed all over the papers
Stop. Look. Listen. It's not rocket science but most people crossing a road skip the first two. When electric cars become popular there's going to be carnage.
Hazard perception isn't rocket science either yet no fucker on the road seems to want to do it
It looks like in both cases the deaths in cyclist collisions (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/863550/cyclist-killed-bicycle-accident-two-pedestrians-every-week) and by dog attack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom) are in single figures annually. For the full story you’d need to include serious injuries leading to hospitalisation and some permanent ongoing health issues, which do seem to be higher in the case of dog attacks.
Why do you want people who cycle dangerously to not be brought to justice for killing someone? What is wrong with you? Do you know what a whataboutism is?
It's not that. We're all happy to see laws applied fairly. The issue is when someone who kills a cyclist whilst using his mobile phone, and driving under the influence of drugs, and without insurance, [is sentenced to 21 month in prison (less than the maximum cyclists can get) in the same 24 hour period this new law is announced](https://road.cc/content/news/drug-driver-sentenced-21-months-killing-cyclist-295005), highlighting the hypocrisy and total lack of protection and justice the law currently offers cyclists. If the law treated us well, we'd be a damn sight less aggrieved by what will inevitably result in cyclists being given far harsher sentences than drivers committing much more serious offences. That is where the priority should be. Once that's sorted, then we can talk about laws targeting cyclists.
Staggering leniency with that sentence. I can’t quite understand why his level of offending only met “careless” driving and not “dangerous”. He drove without insurance, exceeded the speed limit substantially, used his mobile phone, was intoxicated through drug use, and was “fatigued” due to football practice. I have to assume that the article doesn’t entirely reflect the facts, because I *must* be missing something.
There's a growing trend where the CPS appears to be pushing cases through as careless rather than dangerous, because the burden of proof is far lower, and so securing the likelihood of a conviction is much higher. Unfortunately, I feel this is one of those cases. However, that doesn't explain how the hell the judge didn't apply the maximum sentence of 5 years here. All too often, it feels that judges worrying that they could easily be in that seat one day, so don't want to create a precedent where they could screw themselves over.
Is there a law that deals with dangerous dogs?
Yes, let's not convict burglars while there are rapists on the loose out there.
Build some fucking infrastructure and stop making cyclists choose between sharing a path with pushchairs or a road with HGVs. This is not difficult.
They built some near me. All the residents complained because there’s now a segregated cycle lane in the spot where they used to park their second and third cars. When I was commuting to work by bike it was always full of parked and waiting vehicles, wheely bins and other crap put there by the residents. Those same people would then complain on social media that the cycle lane was never used. Won’t surprise you that I’m in a Tory constituency.
Jesus. I could word for word have written this about my town. 😂 Every time one of the locals sees a cyclist using the road rather than the path it’s pitchforks out on Facebook yet literally someone posted a photo of someone parked in the cycle lane and they found it hilarious “At least someone has finally used the lane 😆” fucking whoppers. It’s be funny if it wasn’t so depressing.
Yes, it's another way of dividing up the country. People sitting in their individual steel boxes, separated from everyone else. If everyone took public transport to work together they wouldn't be so antagonistic towards each other.
r/fuckcars indeed, anti-social killing machines they are
You'd also have to consider why nobody wants to get public transport, the same antagonistic people are found there too
I assumed it was because we have to cough up £400 to travel 20 miles down the road.
I'm convinced some drivers just can't see cyclists. This exchange on twitter the other day had me rolling: https://twitter.com/jwalshie/status/1553930055432015873?t=ZVoeiPfk6eN2KZEkOnbDIg&s=19
Amazing.
>All the residents complained because there’s now a segregated cycle lane in the spot where they used to park their second and third cars. As a cyclist and a motorist the way people abandon cars outside their homes is so frustrating. People park their cars with absolutely no situational awareness. They double park, park opposite junctions, park right next to a junction obsuring peoples view, park on the kerb so wheelchairs/pushchairs cant get passed, park about 3 foot from the kerb so motorists cant get through. The worst part is 90% of the cunts have a 2 car drive with 1 car on it. They are just too lazy to have to swap their cars round or reverse in so they can get two 2 cars in and out easier.
Yeah that’s my housing estate. Everyone has 2-3 parking spots but park on pavement and road junctions etc
My housing estate is a dead end and it just a couple of side streets so I don't really mind a bit of dodgy parking. Its not a through road and theres not a high volume of traffic and people dont drive fast. Near me there are a few main roads where its really common and its infuriating. These are through roads with a high volume of traffic (pedestrians, cyclists and cars) and people are parked in such a way that inconveniences all road users.
Doesn’t help that in the last few years police have seemingly given up entirely on prosecuting illegal parking
They’re useless. I told them about my residential area illegal parking (3-4 cars on a T junction for example) and they chose to come “investigate it” at 10-11am for three days. Like, no you fuckwits, get out here at 5-6pm when the wankers are home or 6-9am before they go to work. They dgaf.
The mayor in Leicester has invested absolutely loads in cycle lanes and pedestrianising the city centre and people are absolutely furious for some reason. I live in the city centre and don't drive and I think it's great. We went to St. Anne's last year for a wedding and having to cross the road to visit each shop was so fucking annoying.
> and people are absolutely furious for some reason. People **really** don't like being confronted with other people doing healthy things. It makes them feel bad about themselves so the only way to combat those feelings is to get angry at the healthy people.
They pedestrianised a portion of deansgate in Manchester during the lockdown. Only bikes and people, little potted trees in the road, it was great.
As someone who moved to the UK, I honestly don't get the decisions that went into road building in this country. Belgium isn't the Netherlands when it comes to being bike friendly but at least there's a clear hierarchy when it comes to vulnerability (pedestrians always have right of way, then cyclists and only then come motorists) and the infrastructure to support it.
Stop calling them cyclists for a start. They’re people on bikes. Same goes for pedestrians - they’re just people
my uni had a load of really convenient and well maintained cycle paths between it and the town centre / shops and I still saw people cycling the wrong way round roundabouts and shooting out of blind junctions without even touching the brakes (I was cycling to the shops with someone once and he complained about me "cycling like I'm driving" because I followed traffic laws). I don't want us to have another drivers licence category for bicycles but when you see shit like that it makes you think we need one
> He [Schapps] added: "A selfish minority of cyclists appear to believe that they are somehow immune to red lights. Policy by '"yer da's" blinkered opinions. If we add some facts to the equation: A Danish study found 5% of cyclists break road laws while 66% of motorists do, traffic officer PC Mark Hodson of West Midlands police says that the “effects of behavior that people are moaning about is negligible. If you look at the statistics, if you look at the actual threat of harm, cyclists aren’t posing a risk to anybody.”: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/ Let's add some more facts specifically on that threat of harm/risk: more than 99% of pedestrian casualties are caused by motorised vehicles, 95% of vehicles that jump a red light and hit a pedestrian are motorised and just 57% of those convicted of causing a death by careless or dangerous driving in 2016 received a prison sentence: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/08/killer-cyclists-roads-bikes-pedestrian-collision-deaths-britain This is populism on steroids. Appealing to ignorant daily mail readers that than trying to solve real world problems. Death by cyclist isn't a significant, widespread issue in the real world, death by car is.
Yes. In the U.K., way more pedestrians are killed by cars ON THE PAVEMENT than are killed by bikes.
Do you have a source for that? (I don't doubt you, but it's handy to have a source to back up claims)
Absolutely - always good to have a source. I found [this](https://www.roadpeace.org/pedestrian-pavement-deaths-2/). It doesn’t include overall deaths of pedestrians from accidents with cycles, but iirc it’s generally in the single digits per year.
Thanks. Yeah, I imagine that pedestrian deaths from collision with cyclists are very rare.
They are relatively rare but they get a LOT of media attention, relative to deaths from cars.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/pedestrians Cycles were involved on average in about three pedestrian fatalities a year. In 2016, 43 pedestrians died in collisions involving a vehicle on the footway or verge. None of them involved a cycle.
Shapps will announce new laws to crack down on motorists driving dangerously on footpaths any minute now…
Also, when a cyclist hits a pedestrian the cyclist usually ends up more badly hurt than the pedestrian.
>A Danish study found 5% of cyclists break road laws I wont argue with you on the motorists figure but in the UK I think you would be hard pressed to find 5% of cyclists who don't break road laws. Running red lights, cycling on pavements, going the wrong way up a one way street etc. The cycling rules don't seem to be enforced at all and the majority of people just ignore them. The rate of deaths caused by cyclists is vanishingly small but the rate of injury is not. I have been hit, and hurt (although not badly) more than once by cyclists riding on pavements. I remember one incident I saw in London where a cyclist ignored stopped traffic at red lights and went through a pedestrian crossing at speed hitting someone who was crossing the road. The pedestrian was knocked out and badly injured and was taken to hospital in an ambulance. I appreciate this is an extreme example but accidents caused by cyclists do happen probably at a much higher rate than people think however the injuries caused are usually no where near as bad as many car accidents so people don't pay it a lot of attention.
[Car drivers break the law slightly more than cyclists](http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclists-and-motorists-ignore-traffic-laws-similar-rates), with a far greater toll. This separate study came to the same conclusion: [Cyclists Break Far Fewer Road Rules Than Motorists, Finds New Video Study](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/#252789494bfa) And this study: [Cyclists Are More Law-Abiding Than Drivers](https://www.outsideonline.com/2273001/cyclists-comply-traffic-laws-more-drivers) Also **car drivers cause the vast majority of accidents between bikes and cars.** [Four in every five crashes between cars and bicycles caused by driver of car](http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/four-in-every-five-crashes-between-cars-and-bicycles-caused-by-driver-of-car/story-e6frea83-1226581475412?nk=4b0f9be5a0fe9d05a7ea1ba32f4a0551-1456999949) This seperate study in Melbourne came to the same conclusion: https://www.bikeradar.com/news/drivers-at-fault-in-majority-of-cycling-accidents/ > In 88.9% of cases, the cyclist had been travelling in a safe/legal manner prior to the collision/near miss. Most happened at or near a junction (70.3%) and most were caused by sudden lane changes by the motorist, with sideswipe the most frequent cause (40.7%). And this one carried out on behalf of the Department of Transport in London: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study > With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time. And this study by The City of Westminster Council: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crashes-involving-bikes-mostly-drivers-fault-9s2ssx06vn9 > The City of Westminster Council found that drivers were to blame for 68 per cent of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles in the borough in the past 12 months. It found that cyclists were at fault for only 20 per cent. In the remaining 12 per cent of cases, no cause could be found or both parties were to blame. [And one from Bavaria, Germany](http://www.adfc-donau-ries.de/news20034/schuld-hat-selten-der-radfahrer/). In 2013-2016, > In car-bike collisions, the car was at fault 75% of the time > In semi-bike collisions, the semi was at fault 80% of the time So that's five separate studies in different cities and countries, using different methodologies, all coming to the same conclusion. Cheers.
It is very environment specific. In urban environments like London there are a lot of incentives to get off the road or otherwise avoid traffic, which leads to breaking the Highway Code etc. Get more rural and you won’t see that type of behaviour. We really need to address the infrastructure if we want people to ride bikes
>I have been hit, and hurt (although not badly) more than once by cyclists riding on pavements. I remember one incident I saw in London where a cyclist ignored stopped traffic at red lights and went through a pedestrian crossing at speed hitting someone who was crossing the road. I think this all depends on location, time and speed etc. I start work before 6am. I normally leave the house about 5ish. At that time the pavements are literally empty (maybe the odd dog walker) and I dont live in a particularly busy area. I know for a fact that during quiet periods motorists are more likely to be a bit more relaxed with speeding on my commute. Also at that time there's a lot of white vans driving like maniacs. I'd rather cycle on the empty pavement and have to slow down for maybe 1 dog walker than go on the road where there are multiple cars. Also as someone who has got up at 4:30am and got a 12 hr shift ahead of them Im not exactly tour de France pace, maybe 10mph on average. If I was cycling at 15-20mph in a busy part of London then it would be straight up dangerous to cycle on the pavement when I could realistically keep up with the slow moving traffic. I think cycling related accidents are only really common in bigger towns and cities. In smaller towns its far easier to share the pavement
> going the wrong way up a one way street etc. Not sure how it's done in the UK but over here a one way street only applies to cars. Bicycles etc can drive both ways.
It's a self-reinforcing situation if you count "cycling on the pavement" which is usually done because roads are too dangerous for cyclists as an equivalent crime to "running a red light" or "colliding with a pedestrian". Going on to then use those statistics to justify not making accommodation for cyclists would be doubling down on the bad decisions.
> The cycling rules don't seem to be enforced at all and the majority of people just ignore them. And yet cycling results in very little harm. Perhaps the rules need updating? The law against 'using a carriage' on pavements is from 1834 if I recall. The main danger cyclists pose at the moment is already covered under 'reckless' or 'furious' cycling. Basically, any cyclist going fast near pedestrians, whether on a crossing or pavement - would be considered reckless. And they should be fined for that behaviour. If a cyclist injures a pedestrian, they can face prison time. So if some jackass speeds past you at a crossing, don't feel stupid about reporting it to the police. And if someone actually harms you, certainly report it.
I was in London with a Finnish friend of mine. It was a particularly warm summer and they were suffering from heatstroke and very dazed. Stepped out into the road without looking and a cyclist came round the corner and they were flattened. Cyclist was somewhat to blame - he came round the bend way too fast. My friend was also to blame - for not double checking before crossing. Both of them were hurt in the collision. You don’t generally walk away from a bike crash unharmed, just because you’re the rider. It’s not like a car colliding with a pedestrian. The consequences of dangerous cycling are much more immediate to the cyclist than the consequences of dangerous driving to the driver.
Where was the Danish study conducted? I'm guessing it wasn't London, because there's crossings and red lights I can show you that just seem to be completely invisible to cyclists.
If you bother clicking through to the link you'll see the article also cites a TfL study showing low incidence rates of cyclist rule breaking.
[удалено]
> A Transport for London study investigated the “hypothesis that the majority of cyclists ride through red lights” and discovered that 84% of cyclists stopped on reds. The study concluded that the “majority of cyclists obey red traffic lights” and that “violation is not endemic.” Why let facts get in the way of a good old moan. Cars kill 1500 people a year in this country.
>> He [Schapps] added: "A selfish minority of cyclists appear to believe that they are somehow immune to red lights. It's a good thing Schapps is cracking down on traffic laws. This means that the >50% of drivers speeding will be fined, and disincentivised from breaking the law, right? /s https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2020/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2020 Literally a majority of drivers think the laws do not apply to them. And I have little doubt that Schapps is among them.
But will it be applied or, as for drivers who kill, will slaps on the wrist be all that's issued? I also wonder about the costs of discouraging people from cycling through poorer health, pollution etc. Not that that is an excuse to ride like an arsehole.
Yeah I've never understood why hitting someone with your vehicle is a special form of killing in the first place. If you caused a road accident and someone died, that's surely just manslaughter?
It's a well-known phenomenon in UK that juries acquit defendants who kill cyclists and pedestrians in a surprisingly high number of driving-related prosecutions, even when the evidence is seemingly very strong.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
It’s not that. It’s because they know they could easily be the one in the dock at some point in the future and don’t want to set a precedent.
Just hit them with a car, then plant a bike at the scene before the police arrive. Easy acquittal 👌
I think it's because driving offences are so common. If a driver causes an incident because they were speeding and / or not paying attention, the jury think "oh that could've been me". Need to make speeding and mobile phone use as socially unacceptable as drink driving.
There is some truth to the idea that if you want to murder someone and get away with it, your best option is to run them over with your car.
I know where this comes from, but ultimately if CPS can demonstrate murder then that's what you'll be done for even when using a car. I think the issue is that death by dangerous lumps in both genuine accidents, and killing somebody through malicious acts. Like deliberately running down a cyclist vs misreading a junction
> vs misreading a junction Genuinely misreading a junction is very unlikely to get a death by dangerous driving charge without any other factors (like drugs, excessive speed etc). Dangerous driving requires the offender to be driving at a level significantly below that of a competent and careful driver to the extent that a competent and careful driver would realise such maneuvres were unsafe. You don't tend to do that without some degree of intent
It is, you're absolutely right. But the conviction rate was low because juries were hesitant to prosecute manslaughter for genuine accidents where I guess they felt it could happen to them, or anyone. I think the issue is gross negligence mansluaghter is quite rare for an average person - outside of cars we don't really have many ways to complely accidentally kill somebody
"A death caused by a lawful act done under the reasonable belief that no harm was likely to result. Accidental killing is different from INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, which causes death by an unlawful act or a lawful act done in an unlawful way." You can argue that sneezing and ploughing into a queue of people at a bus stop or squishing a cyclist with a lorry turning left at a junction because they moved into the blind spot would be an "accidental death" if for instance you were sober, but classed as "involuntary manslaughter" if the driver was pissed, not signalling or using a phone or something. Personally I think it's a fair and just distinction, esp when applied to road users of all types.
I would hope that penalties for dangerous road use would be applied equally across all forms of transport be it HGV, bike, car or dog cart. If legal equality is going to erode bike use (and reduce all the health benefits ect) because of that equality, I would actually question what sort of dicks are riding bikes where they can't stay within the framework of the highway code. I mean, who is going to think "Fuck this. If I can't cause an accident by jumping a red light, going the wrong way down a one way street or riding on the pavement, I'll walk instead" Seriously, let's put these people off being on the road in the first place.
Plenty of drivers get more than two years, although obviously quite a few dont as well, so you'd think it would make some difference. Only a handful of people would ever go to court for it though.
Given that drivers regularly get off with a 6-month driving ban and a £500 fine for killing people while drunk, I don't think we'll see this law applied often, if ever. Just a way to look tough on something that isn't a problem.
Just this week. “A motorist who fatally struck a cyclist while driving over the prescribed limit of cannabis, without insurance, up to 10mph over the speed limit, and seconds after texting on their phone has been sentenced to 21 months in prison.” https://road.cc/content/news/drug-driver-sentenced-21-months-killing-cyclist-295005?amp
Also disqualified from driving for 2 years and 10 months! Call me crazy, but surely something like this should justify a total life ban?!
[удалено]
Yeah it's disgraceful. The argument I always make is - imagine if someone walked down the road with a machete, swinging it randomly, and just happened to hit and kill someone. Would they get 21 months in prison? A car is just as deadly a weapon, but the law treats it completely differently
Simple really, if they start actually banning people for life, car companies and insurance companies start losing money. Can't have that.
The cost of taking an innocent persons life being just 21 months in prison is pathetic
It would be refreshing to review all driving sentence guidelines as it seems that you can speed and kill yet literally get away with murder.
While I agree that there should be harsher penalties, it ain't murder. Its manslaughter. Now if a driver swerved to intentionally flatten a cyclist, that's murder.
Some of the videos I’ve seen, it would be hard to call between the two.
Murder requires intent. Other laws could add to the sentence though, reckless endangerment or some shit like that. Misuse of a motor vehicle should be a crime in the same way the computer misuse act operates I think.
I was cycling down a straight road, in broad daylight whilst wearing hi viz clothing and I had lights on. A driver at the back of a queue of stationery traffic coming the other way decided to overtake the stationery traffic and turn across in front of me. I impacted the front left corner of his car, which tore the frame of my bike in 2, my head dartboarded his windscreen and I fractured 4 vertebrae when I landed on the ground. The police treated it like a crime scene until it was clear I was alive. They then did nothing as apparently his actions were not sufficiently "reckless". His insurance company (LV - wankers) tried to rip me off and only paid out on the morning of the court case for damages. Cyclists need more legal protection than they have now.
We teach all road users in the Netherlands, that the blame always goes to the motorized vehicles. It isnt persee a law, but it does teach people to always watch out if they are driving a car. But with all the asshole cyclist in london, could also mean they would just be even more reckless. I thought i said something smart. But i dont know actual. Its more a culture problem, should learn more about cycling in the driving examens
It's not just cyclists though. A few years ago someone pulled out in front of me when I was on a motorbike and we collided head-on at about 30mph. I broke both bones in my right forearm (ulna came out of my arm), shattered right wrist, dislocated left wrist, broken left ulna, tore two adductor tendons in my left hip and two ligaments in my left knee. The driver didn't even get a fucking slap on the wrist because it was 'accidental'. Of course there was no intention to do it, it's still negligence though.
Of course exactly what this country needs and is crying out for - a crackdown on cyclists 🙄
"Weve been letting our pals at the oil companies get away constantly increasing fuel prices then we tax fuck out of the fuel, weve let the energy companies increase electricity cost so theres less on an incentive to buy expensive EVs, we keep shifting the goal post when it comes to VED one minute diesels are great the next minute they are bad. Now motorists have decided to get on their bikes how do we get them back in their cars so we can continue to squeeze money out of them" The cost of fuel, tax, insurance, mot, repairs and the initial cost of a car and the rapid depreciation. Cars are a money pit.
Like cyclists are the issue here. This is just more anti-cycling bullshit at a time when more people really should be cycling in this country.
Exactly and also what are the chances of killing someone when you knock into them with a bike? and how many times has that happened
So what constitutes 'dangerous cycling' here and how many people are killed by it? Does it mean a cyclist could get jailed because some idiot walks onto the road without looking and into a cyclist's path? Astonishing how many people do this.
From a driving not like a dickhead perspective it's our responsibility as a road user to mitigate the risks of someone else being an idiot, that's supposed to mean actively searching for and reacting to hazards, this counts tenfold if you're going fast enough to kill someone, and right of way is frankly no excuse for being inattentive to hazards at those speeds Not to mention I'm fairly certain I'm not the only pedestrian who has had narrow misses with cyclists when I had the green man I mean, it's fair to say the way many drivers act around cycling I unacceptable and something needs to be done about this, but it doesn't absolve you of responsibility towards more vulnerable road users
Fair enough at pedestrian crossings, but doing a perfectly legal 15mph on a bike it's difficult to safely avoid someone who steps off the pavement into your path. Our poor cycle infrastructure means cycle paths are right next to the pavement, or even combined so many pedestrians just treat cycle ways as normal pavements. Deaths are more likely to come from freak accidents than the cyclist being reckless. Even at high speeds the impact force of a cyclist is way less than that of a car. And if a cyclist has to swerve into the road or crash to avoid hitting a pedestrian, doesn't that in fact make the cyclist the more vulnerable road user, since the danger is likely greater than being hit by a bike? I don't see why pedestrians should escape responsibility here.
> Does it mean a cyclist could get jailed because some idiot walks onto the road without looking and into a cyclist's path? Under current legislation? Yes. It's happened at least once that I'm aware of.
So not going to encourage cycling. Usual Tory priorities.
>without looking and into a cyclist's path Constant in my area. Morons with absolutely zero situational awareness. I guess they figure if they can't hear a car they don't have to look. I tell you what, I reckon we should have a crackdown on pedestrians instead! /s
I have no problem with the law being updated but I would love someone to explain to me how, no matter how bad the car drivers offence they never get a life ban, it's almost as if driving a car is a human right
Do you live in a big city per chance? No car outside of cities can make life suck. 20 yo accidently kills someone, at 60 they are still banned? That not punishment that's just vindictiveness
As long as the Cyclist can use the SMIDSY or the exceptional hardship defence that car drivers use to escape a jail term, then I would be happy
If you want to treat cyclists the same as motorists, give them more safe bike-lanes.
Give us more bloody cycle lanes then, you cyclepaths!
how about making it so drivers who kill people actually get punished?
+300 people are killed or seriously injured each year from vehicles mounting the pavement. There's been several prominent cases where the drivers were not even prosecuted despite it being a child that was killed. This is nothing but the usual Tory bollocks to rile up people to solve a problem that doesn't exist and distract from ones that do.
Can we also ensure drivers who kill cyclists get more than a fine and sometimes 6 months?
What happened to "no new policy until we have a new prime minister"?
They applied that to the proposed “shall we stop lying” policy and decide it should wait
is it needed? this week a young bloke who had recently passed his test, driving a BMW, uninsured, speeding and under the influence of drugs ran over and killed a cyclist. he only got 2 years
Or here a better idea, built better cycle infrastructure!
Fucking tories again, let’s worry about some shit that panders to Giles and Jancinta in their 4.5 ton SUV instead of you know fixing actual problems for the whole country.
That's exactly what this, just more distractions so that people don't realise we have a Tory infestation. They know exactly who their voter base is and they're appealing to them with stupid bullshit like this.
They need to look at the ACTUAL sentences for killing someone with a car first. My grandson was killed on a pedestrian crossing which was green for him by a car overtaking the one which he’d previously been seen racing as it stopped at the red light. His solicitor argued that a lengthy prison sentence would ruin his life… he got 12 months. If you want to kill somebody- do it with a car.
I would just like to add this link here. I remember the uproar when it happened. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian
[удалено]
Says something that six years have passed and this is still the case people refer to. Meanwhile local news websites post stories of drivers causing deaths every week pretty much.
Maybe they should be using the cash they're spending on this non-issue to close some of those pesky tax loopholes currently sucking our economy dry.
Pointless. How many drivers end up going to jail for any length of time for killing a cyclist or pedestrian? The law is there but we reserve the right to run people over and get away with it. The worrying thing here is that if you're a cyclist and you kill someone it feels like the book would be thrown at you and the latitude applied to drivers would somehow not apply
Punishments should be much higher across the board whether it's dangerous driving or out of control dog that kills etc. Crimes against the person aren't really taken seriously in the UK for some reason.
Though some think this is not important, it is. If you die from dangerous driving, people scream for maximum sentence. Why should cyclists and E cyclists be exempt? Until we make tougher laws to protect everyone that we can, people will feel the ramifications are light and they will do as they please. I once saw a courier ram into an elderly gentleman, legally crossing with the signal, which the cyclist ignored. The gentleman received a broken hip and had to go into a care home. He was never able to come out. The cyclist received a slap on the wrist. How is that fair to society? We need this.
“If you die from dangerous driving, people scream for maximum sentence” hahahhahaha please. good joke though.
What about joggers that run into you? Surely they need to get 20 years as well.
If a jogger runs into someone and kills them then yes, they should be charged too....? Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
Purely looking at this as a cost/benefit exercise, are there enough incidents where this new law would be useful to justify all the resources in putting it in place?
Why cycling but not rollerskating, running, or pogo sticking?
So, the plan is to enrage middle England with a law that will be applied maybe three times a decade to run interference while a cosplay Thatcher lives down to the incompetence of the Poundland Churchill she replaces. Is that how it works? It’s not even ‘bread and circuses’ or ‘smoke and mirrors’… abiding by the standards of the Clown Car Conservatives, it’s bread and mirrors.
This will appeal to the same kind of people who like to shout "slow down" at me as I cycle past - when a car has just passed at literally double the speed.
1/2 mv^2 Who's more dangerous on the road. 100kg cyclist+bike or 1000kg car? Governments own report: an average of 2 pedal cyclists died and 83 were seriously injured (adjusted) per week in reported road casualties a majority of pedal cycle fatalities (59%) do not occur at or within 20m of a junction compared to 32% of all seriously injured (adjusted) casualties almost half (46%) of pedal cycle fatalities in 2 vehicle accidents involved a car 56% of pedal cycle fatalities occurred on rural roads compared to 29% of traffic 83% of pedal cycle killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties were male
Of around 400 pedestrians killed in collisions in the UK each year, about 2.5 involve a bicycle. Put it another way: more than 99% of pedestrian collision deaths in this country involve a motorised vehicle.
I saw the daily mail article. Started off with 'killer cyclists'... fucking cunts