Government set to open consultation on new causing death by dangerous cycling offence

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

You ride a normal bike with normal brakes under 30mph and you'll never get charged with anything if a ped zombie walks in front of you.

In the current and developing climate, I find that hard to believe...

vonhelmet wrote:

I suppose it would depend on whether the lorry had an illegal lack of brakes. Regardless of whether Alliston’s lack brakes had anything to do with Briggs’ death, once that was known there was no way he was getting off.

or perhaps the hgv was traveling over the speed limit, which like not have a brake on a fixed it’s illegal and has a direct effect on your braking distance but is regular over looked or discounted when pedestrians are killed by motorists because the jury of motorists all brake the speed limit too.

vonhelmet wrote:

I suppose it would depend on whether the lorry had an illegal lack of brakes. Regardless of whether Alliston’s lack of brakes had anything to do with Briggs’ death, once that was known there was no way he was getting off.

albeit veering off topic,and I dont have the precise figures to quote on this, but isnt it the case when the police do one of those occasional joint task force stop all lorries for roadside checks & red diesel, the scary thing is they do find more than the odd one (and Im sure its in the region of 75% they stop they issue tickets for) with defective brakes or illegal tyres, or overweight loads,fault tacographs...etc etc  and yet they only stop a fraction.

burtthebike wrote:

The BBC is committed to fair and balanced reporting but this never happens with cycling.  Never.

Just watching BBC breakfast news covering this story, it's so bad I can't write anything same or sensible, it's so one sided.

Good old air head Sally Nugent, couldn't even get it right when she asked Kim Briggs husband how long she'd been a cyclist! Poor bloke 

burtthebike wrote:

They go into detail about how many pedestrians were killed and injured in collisions with cyclists in 2016, presumably because that was the worst year they could find

I think simply becasue that is the latest full year available.

oldstrath wrote:

Utterly pointless overreaction to one sad death and the bizarre campaign of vengeance waged by the dead woman's widow, aided by the Daily Fascist. Hope he's proud of his great achievement. Worrying though that his anti-cyclist MP is now the person responsible for transport in London. 

I do wonder who he would have blamed if she walked out in front of an HGV that couldn't stop in time?

Perhaps a voiciferous campaign to firm up existing laws and stronger judicial sentancing, that would benefit far more road users, would now be on the cards?

How much will this new Law cost to enact against its true benefit to society?

Brightspark wrote:

The report by Laura Thomas is quite interesting and the recomendation she has is very simple.

It of interest as it looks into the reasons as to why we have the current seperation of causing death/ injury by motor vehicle and evertything else comes under manslauter/ Murder. In my opinion the charge of furious cycling against Aliston should have been manslaughter. But then I am not the CPS who made such a song and dance about the "old and archaic law" which by the way could be used to prosecute people who cause death and injury by opening car doors without taking proper care.

The reason why we have the current set up is that juries have to consider that if they were in the same situation as the acussed then would their decision be any different. They would also have consider the sentence that would be given. That is why death and injury charges against motorists are so soft.

The recomendation, is quite simple, that is to remove from the current law the word "motor". This would then make the law applicable to all vehicles not just motor vehicles. So cycles and mobility scooters would be included as potentially would horse carts skateboards and hover boots.

The potential risk (or it may be an advantage) is that this may be applied to other laws and then cycles would be treated as any other road vehicle.

However this is the nasty party running the government and Heidi and the Stupid Woman have an agenda on "Killer Cyclists". So I bet my dinner money that what comes out of this will not be the simple solution but something more nasty and vindictive.

Here is the link to the report.

“In my opinion the charge of furious cycling against Alliston should have been manslaughter.” Manslaughter was one of the charges, and he was found not guilty of that.

“ remove from the current law the word "motor”.  In whch case I say bring it on, then the reckless rider can excuse themselves with reasons such as  “the sun was in my eyes” or even “I didn’t see them” as in the Michael Mason case /s. In other words, sentences for reckless cycling should be the same as those for reckless driving. If this means sentences for reckless driving become more severe, then go for it, I say.

However, my concern is that, if a dangerous/careless cycling law is passed, we will have juries composed largely of non-cyclists deciding what is the standard of a “competent and careful cyclist”. The cycling mode share stats suggest that 97% of potential jurors would have no idea of this from actually cycling  - unlike, say, a jury in a reckless driving case. Sounds like a surefire recipe for miscarriages of justice against cyclists to me.

StuInNorway wrote:

Surely the simplest and quickest change is to simply change the definition of a vehicle in terms of "driving" to include all transport vehicles,  bikes, pedal ricksahws, electric assist bikes, and current motorised transport. That would also mean that speed limits apply to bikes too (not that many places cyclists regularly go over them except in a few royal parks maybe), adds the option for drunk in charge of a bike, etc etc. Then the same requirement of proof would be required in any case brought. . . .  as in a number of cases even with a number plate, clear view of the driver, the hire company "didn't know who was driving.

An update to increase the penalties for failing to provide driver's details, and include making the person a hire car is rented to liable unless they provide other details to clear up that loophole.

 

Isn't cycling already included in the definition of driving, the law for going through a red light only referee to drivers.  Drunk in charge of a bike is already an offence under the 1872 Licencing Act.  Surely there needs to be a death by careless cycling offence so a cyclist can get the same slap on the wrist as a driver, it's only fair after all.

StuInNorway wrote:

An update to increase the penalties for failing to provide driver's details, and include making the person a hire car is rented to liable unless they provide other details to clear up that loophole.

The hiree is liable though.

The problem is where 2 people are on the list of drivers and claim to be unaware https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617

perhaps that is what you are thinking of ?

burtthebike wrote:

And now the real reason they had the much delayed consultation on cycling and safety, so that they could introduce this law.  As Brooksby says, just a waste of time and money.

What's the betting that this would be enacted before anything in the cycling safety consulation?  Odds of 1000:1 wouldn't seem unlikely.

Exactly: not a review on cycling safety as much as on road safety, and not in the sense of making the roads safer but in the sense of being seen to punish eeeevil cyclists (both of them!) and not in any way continue the mythical War on Motorists (and it is mythical, you know).