Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Legislation against cyclists for causing death by bike

I’m going out for a ride on my bike 🚴‍♂️However I’ll have to be very careful that I don’t kill anyone while I’m out. Over 30,000 accidents including fatalities on our roads every year whereby 3 deaths are attributed to cyclists. Personally I think 3 too many.

Surely the focus should be on the 30,000 collisions causing death and injuries on our roads caused by motor vehicles. It's this Tory  govt demonising cyclists, they see it as an opportunity to divide us .
Perhaps they should add in lightning ⚡️ and cows 🐄 as they kill more people per year than cyclists. 
I find it offensive that they always demonise the poor, sick and the most vulnerable in society. They even made it a crime to be homeless. FFS

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment


David9694 | 1 month ago

We need to turn this debate. Hopefully this nonsense will pass in a day or two but the evidence of car crash after car crash, followed by lenient to non-existent sentencing (NFA) is legion. 

mattw replied to David9694 | 1 month ago

This is important I think.

We need to consider language around categories - for example the undefined "e-bike" allows conflation of a person doing 4mph using a tricycle as a mobility with hooded thug on a Surron doing 50mph, and the abuse of the one because of the other.

At that means that when I argue for cycles as mobility aids in pedestrian areas at a "mobility scooter" pavement speed, otherwise rational people throw wobblies.

There are inbred double standards in the heads of the public, and unreflective hypocrisy from the motohoon demographic.

We can start chipping away at this via how we handle ourselves eg on social media.

I'm quite interested in Mark Hodson's take on the IDS knee jerk. He says IDS will improve prosecution of dangerous drivers by the back door, without realising what he has done.

Thinking ...

Andrewbanshee | 1 month ago
1 like
stonojnr replied to Andrewbanshee | 1 month ago
1 like

Sadly they're, and its reprinted in the EDP, EADT and Ipswich Star, jumping on the op ed outrage wagon to boost clicks and flagging ad revenues, as the comment section shows it works unfortunately

lonpfrb | 1 month ago

"3 deaths are attributed to cyclist"

The government stats do not attribute responsibility, because that requires investigation, rather provide which modes of transport are involved. Investigation is optional depending upon the circumstances.

So 3 pedestrian deaths involved a bicycle does not literally mean that the cyclist was responsible.

Obviously when CPS brings a manslaughter case it does mean that an investigation provided compelling evidence likely to secure a conviction.

A bicycle not fitted with the legally required brakes being compelling evidence..

Spangly Shiny | 1 month ago

I wonder whether, should there be a trial of a cyclist, that there will be a requirement stipulating all jurors should be cyclists? After all a jury should consist of one's peers.

lonpfrb replied to Spangly Shiny | 1 month ago
1 like

Logical, but unfortunately insight and competence have never been required in jury selection.

Peers only means members of the human race, in a blind justice way...

I suppose that the legal profession would say that its their job to make the key facts of a case understandable to everyone.

So maybe it's more important for the defence lawyers to be cyclists or at least to get expert witnesses to ensure the facts are correctly represented.

chrisonabike replied to lonpfrb | 1 month ago

Never completely understood why they didn't just bring in a driving test examiner etc. as appropriate.  I'm guessing:

a) This would be an innovation - perhaps there is bias in the judiciary against doing so, or the CPS simply won't have it.
b) ... and on that - cost
c) Availability - I think a lot of court effort is just getting the people in the place at the time.
d) In the case of cycling perhaps there are diminishing returns to doing so as due to people not being clear who would be an officially recognised "cycling expert"?  I'm sure some people could be found but their notability / official status and hence relevance before a jury may not make them a big asset to the defence?  (Noting though that in the recently reported cyclepath collision case they dug out John Franklin of all people as an expert witness...)

Tom_77 | 1 month ago

30,000 is the figure for Killed or Seriously Injured. In 2022 there were 1,711 fatalities.

andystow replied to Tom_77 | 1 month ago

Tom_77 wrote:

30,000 is the figure for Killed or Seriously Injured. In 2022 there were 1,711 fatalities.

Don't worry, we've got your 40,000 actually killed over here in the USA. Hell, we had over 1711 in 2023 just in Georgia, a state with 1/6 the population of the UK.

I can't find meaningful stats for pedestrians killed by cyclists over here. There were a few high profile cases recently in NYC... as in the UK, because it's so rare that it's a "man bites dog" headline.

lonpfrb replied to andystow | 1 month ago

So 100 years of Big Automotive and Big Oil marketing propaganda have made road death acceptable and expected so there's no political ambition to change it. #VisionZero

Nowhere bigger than USA, and nothing more important than protecting Democracy for another 250 years from the wannabe Dictator
Dementia Dozy Don who believes he's above the law.

#45 belongs in Fulton County Jail where he will be accountable for his actions and not above the law.

mattw replied to andystow | 1 month ago

No meaningful stats in the UK either.

It routinely gets conflated with stats for eg high speed "e-bikes" which are motorcycles or mopeds.

Latest Comments