Transport Minister Jesse Norman will today announce that the Government is launching what it says will be a wide ranging review in to cycle safety. The review has been launched in response “to a series of high profile incidents involving cyclists” according to the official press release of the announcement – thought to be a reference to the case in which cyclist Charlie Alliston who was was this week sentenced to 18 months in a young offenders institution for the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs when the pair collided in London’s Old Street in February 2016.
The statement announcing the review says the first phase will look at whether a new offence equivalent to causing death by careless or dangerous driving should be introduced for cyclists, before moving on to the question of wider improvements for cycling road safety issues.
Some of the statement announcing the review and of the structure of the review itself are likely to raise both eyebrows and hackles amongst sections of the cycling community.
Many will no doubt point out that it is over three years since the then Tory lead Coalition Government promised a review in to sentencing policy in relation to convictions for the offences of causing death by careless driving, and causing death by dangerous driving in a bid to tackle poor driving standards and make the roads safer for everyone. Despite repeated requests from Cycling UK, British Cycling, MPs, and peers the lenient sentencing review has still not published its findings and only got started in 2016 at which time the Government said it would present legislation before the end of 2017. As yet neither the review nor any new legislation have been forthcoming. In the interim over 5000 people are estimated to have been killed on UK roads – around 1200 pedestrians and over 300 cyclists.
The structure of the review is also likely to cause comment with the Government choosing to put examining the case for creating new offences of causing death by dangerous, or careless cycling ahead of actually making roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Some will no doubt wonder if following the Alliston case ministers want to be seen to be doing something to appease the clamour in sections of the right wing press (and ahead of the upcoming Conservative Party conference) rather than actually doing something.
If saving lives is the priority it certainly looks like an odd way of setting up the review given the grim fact that – as the minister mentions in his comments accompanying the announcement – while two pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2015 that tragic figure is eclipsed by the 407 pedestrians killed by other vehicles that same year, and the 100 cyclists.
This line from the minister is also likely to cause comment in that it would appear to give equivalence to the amounts of pain and suffering caused by dangerous cycling and dangerous driving:
“We’ve seen the devastation that reckless cycling and driving can cause, and this review will help safeguard both Britain’s cyclists and those who share the roads with them.”
While there is no argument that any death or serious injury whatever the cause will result in needless pain and suffering it seems odd that the minister chooses to mention cycling first when in 2015 – the year she uses as an example according to Department for Transport statistics two people were killed by cyclists (the minister doesn’t mention whether in either case charges were brought against the cyclists) while 1,730 people were killed by other vehicles, the vast majority in incidents involving motor vehicles – that’s not to mention the 22,137 people seriously injured, again mostly in incidents involving motor vehicles.
Here are Transport Minister Jesse Norman’s comments in full on the announcement of the Governments cycling safety review plus the rest of the announcement:
“Although the UK has some of the safest roads in the world, we are always looking to make them safer.
“It’s great that cycling has become so popular in recent years but we need to make sure that our road safety rules keep pace with this change.
“We already have strict laws that ensure that drivers who put people’s lives at risk are punished but, given recent cases, it is only right for us to look at whether dangerous cyclists should face the same consequences.
“We’ve seen the devastation that reckless cycling and driving can cause, and this review will help safeguard both Britain’s cyclists and those who share the roads with them.”
Since the government trebled spending on cycling between 2010 and 2017, there has been a huge increase in the number of cyclists on our roads.
In 2015, two pedestrians were killed and 96 seriously injured after being hit by a bicycle. Every year more than 100 cyclists are killed and more than 3,000 seriously injured on British roads.
The review, which will seek to improve all elements of cycle safety, will be in two phases.
The first phase will analyse the case for creating a new offence equivalent to causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous driving to help protect both cyclists and pedestrians. This phase will be informed by independent legal advice and the conclusions are expected to be reported in the New Year.
The second phase will be a wider consultation on road safety issues relating to cycling. It will involve a range of road safety and cycling organisations, as well as the general public and will consider different ways in which safety can be further improved between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. It will consider the rules of the road, public awareness, key safety risks and the guidance and signage for all road users.
Further details of the review will be announced shortly.
Responding to the announcement Paul Tuohy, Cycling UK’s Chief Executive said:
“The consultation on road safety issues is an opportunity to keep cyclists and pedestrians safer. Cycling UK looks forward to working with the Department for Transport on this consultation to ensure it focuses on evidenced ways that keep our most vulnerable road users safe, by addressing risks such as dangerous roads, drivers and vehicles.
“The proposed review of cycling offences needs to be carried out as part of the Government’s promised wider review of all road traffic offences and sentencing. This will ensure the justice system can deal with mistakes, carelessness, recklessness and deliberately dangerous behaviour by all road users.”
117 thoughts on “Government announces cycle safety review in wake of Alliston case”
It takes one cyclist to make
It takes one cyclist to make my life a vote winner, something thousands of drivers have failed to do.
So, mandatory helmets then.
So, mandatory helmets then.
But seriously, motors kill thousands every year, so why aren’t they pulling their hair out when motorists just get a slap on the wrists, bloody two-faced twats.
kie7077 wrote:
I liked your post but then withdrew it because of the mandatory helmet comment, which I’m sure was sarcastic, but even so, I couldn’t stomach it. To coin a phrase “Over my dead body”.
Second sentence spot on, except for the fact that it isn’t “motors” it’s drivers.
burtthebike wrote:
He said “motorists” not “motors. I believe that “motorists” is another word for “drivers”, it is not another word for vehicle. Just like “biker” can be used to mean “cyclist”, it is not used to mean “bike”.
ClubSmed wrote:
Actually he did say ‘motors’ – read it again (not that it’s a big deal, and anyway my eyes are starting to deteriorate as well).
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
He said “motorists” not “motors. I believe that “motorists” is another word for “drivers”, it is not another word for vehicle. Just like “biker” can be used to mean “cyclist”, it is not used to mean “bike”.
— burtthebike Actually he did say ‘motors’ – read it again (not that it’s a big deal, and anyway my eyes are starting to deteriorate as well).— kie7077
Ahh, you are right. He says “Motors” in the first sentance but uses “Motorists” in the second. It was only the second time he said it that I noted it.
Though it does bring up the question, as it is the vehicle that impacts with the pedestrian is it not the motor that kills? Where as in most of the cases with cyclists it is the impact of the cyclists head that causes the serious injury so is may not be entirely incorrect usage? Though I of course accept that it is not really the usage that is of question, rather the connetation that it has
Wow! Only three years after
Wow! Only three years after announcing a review of road law and punishments, the government swing into immediate action.
Lying. Bunch. Of. Hypocrites.
This won’t end well – it
This won’t end well – it feels like we’re swiftly reaching the point where it is completely acceptable to villify cyclists. I very much doubt we will see laws based on evidence but instead bile and bluster will shape legislation.
This all feels so entirely in keeping with the state of modern Britain – so depressing and yet unsurprising.
jasecd wrote:
It hasn’t started well. Standing roadside with my bike taking a photo in a quiet country lane this morning a Jeep thing pulled up and the male driver launched into a verbal attack on me that culminated in “you’ll get what you deserve…” Unprovoked, unwarranted but I’m sure he feels in light of recent anti-cycling rhetoric he’s throughly entitled. As you say, acceptable to villify cyclists.
Right now any pleasure I get from cycling is totally negated by the threat I feel I face and I’m within an inch of just giving up.
Ryder wrote:
Don’t give up cycling – you’ll only be hurting yourself.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Absolutely don’t give up. Screw ’em, keep riding. Ride more if you can. Granted, we may all need to grow the hide of a rogue bull rhinoceros, but screw ’em anyway.
So, 100 plus cyclists killed
So, 100 plus cyclists killed every year on the roads but actually it’s the cyclists’ behaviour in particular that we are going to look at trying to improve ‘cos they kill 2 people a year .
And anyway cyclists are not really supposed to use our road network and are pretty stupid to do so as it’s actually designed for cars and goods vehicles and cyclists just don’t mix well with this type of road user so we’d like to legislate to make the life of the cyclist a little bit tougher and put more legal constraints on people stupid enough to ride bikes so we can turn round and tell them ‘tough’ when they get knocked off or killed and they weren’t wearing a helmet or enough hi-viz at the time….
Tonight a 73 yr old man
Tonight a 73 yr old man (cyclist) lost his life in derby in a collision with a lorry still to early for details are they going to use that in the review. One thing for sure confrontation will become the norm not the exception. Sad day the majority will have to suffer because of a dick head. The government needs to remember we have a vote too
Come on you lot, have some
Come on you lot, have some faith in democracy. There is a strong libertarian streak in our legal system; that is the very reason we have the freedom to choose to wear a helmet or not. Plenty of governments have had the option to legislate before and haven’t. The final question will be is it worth the cost (for a couple of cases) and the answer will be, no, lets not bother. Freedom is cheap.
Leviathan wrote:
It’s not about faith in the legal system – it’s the fuckwits in charge with their slim (paid for) parliamentary majority that will change the laws that will impact us.
Perhaps latching on to any tiny issue and inflating it’s importance will provide a welcome distration from their inability to manage brexit, the economy, the NHS or society in general. Add in a complicit hate fuelled media and there will be plenty of column inches praising these urgent new laws to combat the real dangers on the roads!
Leviathan wrote:
Or what will play well with the tabloids. What do you think that might be?
Or are you taking the Michael? I honestly can’t tell.
Leviathan wrote:
Faith in democracy. Hollow laughter I’m afraid. None of that faith left after the bizarre self harming of the referendum.
Faith in this government not to legislate in the interests of big corporations. No.
If your optimistic final sentences were true they wouldn’t even start – it is clearly obvious that the real danger is too low to care over. I suspect this is the start of the clearance – get us out of the way of the autonomous vehicles.
oldstrath wrote:
Major road laws reviews only come along once in a generation, if that.
I fear this could extend to not just helmet laws for cyclists but lay the path for Autonomous Vehicles. Every major vehicle manufacturer is pushing this at the moment, and lobbying government hard. They need to control cyclists and pedestrians to get their products on the market.
This is not going to end well.
Leviathan wrote:
Though this isn’t about our legal system, its a political decision to determine what the law will be, so whether there’s a ‘libertarian streak’ in the former is irrelevant.
Whether it will be worth the cost doesn’t stop them, cf the dangerous dogs act.
The usual thing that stops this sort of nonsense is a lack of parliamentary time. And the trouble is, this government appears to prefer to bypass parliament anyway (as they know they haven’t really got a majority – apparently the payoff to their DUP mercenaries hasn’t actually gone through yet) so there is reason to worry.
Oh how I was just thinking
Oh how I was just thinking that there should be a review of how the law treats dangerous cycling as I was overtaken on my way home this evening as I was riding in primary position wearing helmet and high viz jacket, dynamo lights on, reflective panniers etc., signalling clearly with my right arm to turn right, by a completely idiotic car driver who only just managed to avoid the vehicle coming in the opposite direction. It is all on video but I really doubt the Met Police would be remotely interested.
Pub bike wrote:
Please submit the footage to the police.
The way I see it is that the more cyclists that use cameras and report bad driving to the police, the better. If motorists never know whether cyclists are watching them or not, then some of them may think twice before certain maneouvres. And, in the rare cases that the police follow up the complaint, the chastised motorist is almost certain to whine and complain about it to lots of fellow motorists who then get the idea that “the cyclists might be watching”.
(By the way, I don’t believe in cyclists as a collective, so feel free to ignore my views)
hawkinspeter wrote:
Unless your camera is mounted in such a position that you were able to prove how close they passed you the police won’t be interested.
I reported an incident where a car squeezed past me at a traffic island, full hd footage, front and back, camera mounted on seat post and handle bars….. and the response “sorry you cant prove how close the car was to you, can’t do anything”….. roughly translated “we can’t be bothered doing anything”.
In my opinion it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to prove that if a car and a bike go through a gap just over 1m wider than a car that the car did not give the cyclist enough space…. but the police seem to think that it is too difficult to prove.
craigstitt wrote:
It depends on the police force. If you think they just dismissed the footage without properly examining it, then you can push the matter further if you’re so inclined.
I think it’s still worth submitting as many cases of bad driving as possible so that close-passing/bullying behaviour can be at least counted.
craigstitt wrote:
Also you absolutely can prove the distance from the camera mathematically if you know the focal length of the lens, the sensor size and the size of the object in real life. I’m assuming that your issue relates to a helmet mounted camera rather than one mounted to the bars?
Reardless, as you say they squeezed past inside a traffic island so it’s obvious that it was an illegally close pass. You should go back to the police and insist that they take action – you have definitive proof and they have a duty to investigate and prosecute illegal driving. The more we take action, the more they have to listen.
Democracy fails us here
Democracy fails us here because there are around 30 million cars in the UK suggesting that most of the electorate own one.
Politicians of both major parties are loathe to upset the motoring majority by doing anything to help those pesky cyclists who are just needlessly riding around slowing down motorists. I mean they’re not actually travelling to work are they? On a bicycle? How quaint? Isn’t it, well, dangerous??
Pub bike wrote:
This is the type of comment I referenced in another section about how sometimes it feels like a load of them have a bad case of the Daily Mail’s, in essence they are utterly silly and very tribal which will never be of any benefit to cyclists. The reality is different governments have hammered motorists over the last few decades, there is very little doubt they will continue to do so as well.
I personally passed my cycling proficiency test in the late 1980s which I did well enough at that they put me through to some sort of advanced secondary test which I didn’t do as well at. 3 years ago I got my CBT done, last year I did my A2 motorbike tests and this year I decided to do my car tests all because I’ll soon move away from London so need easy use of other forms of transport instead of just cycling. I may even go for my lorry license next year just to continue to add to my license and open up more options.
I’ve seen plenty of people being stupid in all types of vehicles, there are no exceptions to this, to the point that even walking seems to be beyond some people. Personally a few years ago on the way to work I was nearly knocked off 3 times in one morning with one car in traffic cutting across me while I was in the cycle lane without signaling or looking in his mirror, then a car reversed out of a drive way on to the main road and thus nearly into me and the third of that cycle ride to work involved me swerving to avoid being doored.
At the end of the day besides all the whining and the fact criminal acts are still commited by users of other vehicles they are heavily regulated through laws to do with driver testing, vehicle safety tests (MOT), insurance, etc. while at the moment there are in reality none of these for cyclists or for the bicycles they use. Now I’m not sure they need to change much right now but the growing miniority of bell ends need to be stopped by the community of cyclists and certainly not keep being excused by the community before the government deicdes it has to act, no one has ever liked regulation since it brings in unwanted restrictions and extra costs.
embattle wrote:
This is a joke, right? Do tell me one occassion on which motorists have been ‘hammered’
Those regulations work so well don’t they.
What ‘community of cyclists’ would that be? How do you imagine I can affect the behaviour of a cyclist at the other end of the country? Should I get on a sleeper, track him down and educate him? Do you propose the AA might educate all the drivers I see on mobiles?
I didn’t realise it was so complicated but successive governments have hammered motorists with ever increasing taxes, charges, regulations, limitations, fines and penalties and generally spending on roads has stagnated or decreased as a % of revenues raised from motorists which ironically affects cyclists more as those potholes are much more danagerous to a bicycle than even a motorcycle and certainly more than a car.
I made quite clear they don’t stop everyone and that is normal after all no law no matter what it covers from murder to mobile phones will stop people from breaking them but in general it does see a reduction in such offences.
Most people know they aren’t allowed to use mobile phones as there has been plenty of coverage about it, including by the motoring organisations (https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/legal/mobile-phones and https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/know-how/mobile-phone-laws/) plus as previously stated it is a law unlike using one when cycling which at moment the best that can be done is to charge someone with careless cycling but naturally both require a police officer to actually be there at the time. I should point out I believe that the penalty for driving while using a mobile phone should go further, possibly even black listing users from phones.
Actually everyone can affect their own behaviour, even affect those in the immidate vicinity but the habit recently seems to be to try and defend what I consider to be the indefensible with some of the oddest excuses which includes ones such as if they break the law and do something why can’t we.
I suspect most of what I’m saying will be picked apart and ignored, that is fine because the ultimate outcome will be increased regulation/laws aimmed to bring bicycles in line with other vehicles and since someone needs to pay for them it’ll lead to increased costs for cyclists. Either way it’ll be my last comment on this article.
embattle wrote:
I find it hard to believe you mean this collection of obviously-not-true, ‘hard-pressed-motorist’, cliches seriously. It’s just boilerplate stuff, that you must know bears no relationship to reality.
The facts are that the cost of motoring has reduced substantially and continually over the last 40 years (probably why the number of households with a car has increased from 1 in 7 to more than half). That’s the reality, and I’m sure you are aware of that.
Motorists do not pay, and have never paid, anywhere near the full rental/opportunity cost of the roads (you think all that prime urban real-estate you drive or park on comes for free, unlike all other land? If you live in a rented house do you only pay the cost of maintenance?).
What drivers pay is a contribution towards the other external costs they create in terms of pollution, policing, health, and maintenance – but they don’t pay for exclusive use of the roads (because they couldn’t afford it).
There are effectively no revenues raised from motorists, because the net balance of costs and revenues is negative. Motoring is subsidised. Because it has been allowed to become so central to the the functioning of society and the economy (and the more it’s subsidised the more central it becomes).
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I didn’t realise it was so complicated but successive governments have hammered motorists with ever increasing taxes, charges, regulations, limitations, fines and penalties and generally spending on roads has stagnated or decreased as a % of revenues raised from motorists which ironically affects cyclists more as those potholes are much more danagerous to a bicycle than even a motorcycle and certainly more than a car.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos I find it hard to believe you mean this collection of obviously-not-true, ‘hard-pressed-motorist’, cliches seriously. . . . .— embattle
All the rest of what you write is true but sadly I think all too many people actually do mean this sort of guff seriously. Big part of the problem, in fact.
I’m with Leviathan on this
I’m with Leviathan on this one – the sheer incompetence, proceduralism, lack of professionalism, and standardised unfocused mediocrity of UK democracy promises a review that will take 20 years to reach the conclusion that it was 98.3% inconclusive and then launch another 20 year review into the original review with equally conclusive results.
beezus fufoon wrote:
I hope so, and I hope that they’re just making a headline here, but they’re the party of the knee-jerk: always the path of least resistance (it was easier for Cameron to promise and call a referendum than to actually manage the ‘European problem’ within his party. But then manage the fall-out? Fuck no). And May is a total wallop even compared to that posh chimp.
Complex reviews and evidence-based policy, forget it: we’re safe from that. That’s why the proper road and sentencing review won’t happen.
But stupid simplistic shit that plays to the tabloids, causes division and uncalled-for misery to people that don’t vote for them – they manage to get their shit together for that. And there are probably enough numbnut MPs of other colours to push through a load of restrictions on cycling if it came to a free vote.
Just like politicians, isn’t
Just like politicians, isn’t it?
They jump at an opportunity to solve an easy problem, like protecting pedestrians from cyclists with possibly Draconian laws and penalties. Then they can shout “See, I’ve done something, I’m a great civil servant!”
When it comes to the harder problem of how to get motorists to stop killing cyclists (usually because of the lame “excuse” – “I didn’t see them”) they do what politicians usually do when faced with a difficult problem – they stick their heads up their asses.
Law making brought to you by
Law making brought to you by x-factor, whatever next?!
Tar pit and feather pit in
Tar pit and feather pit in the bike lane. Carbon stocks. Now stiffer and more aero.
I bet this “review” will end
I bet this “review” will end up costing millions that could have been better spent actually building safe cycling infrastructure. I foresee a colossal waste of money coming right up.
Far too many getting on their
Far too many getting on their high horse about this one. Yes deaths caused by cyclists are rare, but that doesn’t mean that manslaughter is the only appropriate charge to being in these cases.
If Alliston had been knowingly driving a car with faulty brakes it would have been a clear case of causing death by dangerous driving. Manslaughter was not the appropriate charge in his case but it was the only one available.
Just because it’s rare doesn’t mean legislation doesn’t need updating.
Vehlin wrote:
He was convicted and sentenced to eighteen months in jail. Far worse than a motorist would have received. How does that demonstrate that the law needs changing?
The actions of one fixie rider are now being used to justify restrictions being brought in (imagine how good the KSI stats will look when cyclists aren’t allowed on A roads, for example).
And don’t imagine that infrastructure will be built to achieve that end: that would involve spending money and there isn’t a magic money tree (unless you work for a political party in Northern Ireland).
brooksby wrote:
He was convicted and sentenced to eighteen months in jail. Far worse than a motorist would have received. How does that demonstrate that the law needs changing?
The actions of one fixie rider are now being used to justify restrictions being brought in (imagine how good the KSI stats will look when cyclists aren’t allowed on A roads, for example).
And don’t imagine that infrastructure will be built to achieve that end: that would involve spending money and there isn’t a magic money tree (unless you work for a political party in Northern Ireland).— Vehlin
Because changing the law protects cyclists from draconian charges and sentences? Not sure that was the intention of Mr Briggs.
My concern here is the use of high profile deaths in the statement. They are saying it’s up to the media to decide which actions are worthy of redress.
Vehlin wrote:
So of you have limited time and resources would a rational person seek to fix the problem that results in 2 or 3 deaths a year, or the one that results in 100s a year?
So of you have limited time and resources would a rational person seek to fix the problem that results in 2 or 3 deaths a year, or the one that results in 100s a year?
[/quote]
I think the “problem” they’re trying to fix is their standing in the polls. Lives aren’t a concern when set against that weighty matter. So they pander to the Daily Mail. In that sense their actions are rational, just despicable.
Vehlin wrote:
I wish people would read the whole case instead of simply picking specific facts and using them to justify their ramblings.
The pedestrian stepped out into the road giving Allister a little over 6m in which to stop, this is according to the prosecution. According to the government, at 20mph, the thinking and reaction time is 6m. He was travelling at 18mph, therefore had as much as 1m in which to stop. No amount of brakes are going to stop a bike within that distance, not front nor rear nor both.
People read that he had only one brake therefore could have stopped if he had two within the distance he had. No he couldn’t! I challenge any cyclist to bring their bike to a halt from 18mph in 1m.
Similarly to the driver who killed four cyclists with 3 defective tyres. His excuse was that he hit black ice and therefore even if he had 4 LEGAL tyres, it wouldn’t have made a difference. (The fact that it couldn’t be proved that he had hit black ice, due to the nature of ice melting, nor could it be proved that he didn’t – again read the whole case. ) Regardless, it was taken at face value and he got off scot free.
Also, there’s no such thing as a clear case of causing death by dangerous driving. A friend of mine died when he was mowed down by a cement truck, in broad daylight, on a straight road, good visibility and the trucks own CCTV was used by the prosecution. Police said he would be charged with dangerous driving, first court appeareance he was charged with dangerous driving, at trial the CPS charged him with death by careless driving! Go figure.
What about when a pedestrian walks out into the road, collides with a cyclists who later dies (as happened in Bristol, I think, earlier this year)? Will they be charged with manslaughter?
Notice how another similar case where an old man was hit by a cyclist and died never made the tabloids? Would it be because the pedestrian in Allisters case was a young, pretty mother with a very vocal husband?
This is simply a knee jerk reaction by the government wanting to be seen to be doing something.
jigr69 wrote:
I wish people would read the whole case instead of simply picking specific facts and using them to justify their ramblings.
The pedestrian stepped out into the road giving Allister a little over 6m in which to stop, this is according to the prosecution. According to the government, at 20mph, the thinking and reaction time is 6m. He was travelling at 18mph, therefore had as much as 1m in which to stop. No amount of brakes are going to stop a bike within that distance, not front nor rear nor both.
People read that he had only one brake therefore could have stopped if he had two within the distance he had. No he couldn’t! I challenge any cyclist to bring their bike to a halt from 18mph in 1m.
Similarly to the driver who killed four cyclists with 3 defective tyres. His excuse was that he hit black ice and therefore even if he had 4 LEGAL tyres, it wouldn’t have made a difference. (The fact that it couldn’t be proved that he had hit black ice, due to the nature of ice melting, nor could it be proved that he didn’t – again read the whole case. ) Regardless, it was taken at face value and he got off scot free.
Also, there’s no such thing as a clear case of causing death by dangerous driving. A friend of mine died when he was mowed down by a cement truck, in broad daylight, on a straight road, good visibility and the trucks own CCTV was used by the prosecution. Police said he would be charged with dangerous driving, first court appeareance he was charged with dangerous driving, at trial the CPS charged him with death by careless driving! Go figure.
What about when a pedestrian walks out into the road, collides with a cyclists who later dies (as happened in Bristol, I think, earlier this year)? Will they be charged with manslaughter?
Notice how another similar case where an old man was hit by a cyclist and died never made the tabloids? Would it be because the pedestrian in Allisters case was a young, pretty mother with a very vocal husband?
This is simply a knee jerk reaction by the government wanting to be seen to be doing something.— Vehlin
Totally agree with you. The prosecution used the case of police mountain bike probably fitted with disc brake instead of using the same bike fitted with front break. I’m pretty sure if they had used the latter, their result would not have been so conclusive. I’m also curious if they going to prosecute driver going 18 mph or higher if their speed is lower than the speed limit.
Alex26c wrote:
I’ve not seen the video if the police test but how do they account for reaction time when they knew exactly what was going on? Probably even had fingers on brake levers waiting.
wycombewheeler wrote:
its not unreasonable to exclude thinking time as part of the test, as you are attempting to ascertain the physical stopping distance of the bike with and without a front brake, and if the test concludes the stopping distance without the front brake far exceeds the limit you had set, whilst the stopping distance with the front brake doesnt, then thinking/reaction time is irrelevant, youve proven not having a front brake contributes to be an inevitable cause of the collision.
whats not reasonable is to setup your test with completely different bikes, run it at seemingly different speeds with different braking points and maybe even a not trying very hard to stop approach on one the bikes, because then its just a nonsense.
jigr69 wrote:
Um, you rather undermine your demand that others read the case when you can’t even get the main protagonist’s name right…
Vehlin wrote:
If Alliston had been driving a car with defective brakes and a pedestrian stepped out in front of him on the phone, he wouldn’t even have been charged. If he sounded his horn – the equivalent of a cyclist shouting – it would be seen as a mitigating action, not something that makes the offence worse.
There is no excuse for bad cycling, but bad cycling is such a minor thing compared with bad driving, that I can’t help but feel that cyclists are being used as a scapegoat.
All seems a bit bread-and
All seems a bit bread-and-circuses.
Years after promising a full review of road safety but then kicking it into the long grass, hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries later the government decides it’ll do something; but not do the thing that might actually make roads safer, oh no, do the things first which will placate the tabloids (and then kick the rest back into the long grass).
All because of the actions of one fixie rider.
If nothing else, the government clearly believes in collective responsibility…
Does make you wonder: is the government really that desperate for a distraction or does the DM (or someone) actually have dirt, to force their hand…
Very much a kneejerk reaction
Very much a kneejerk reaction to the coverage of the ‘death by fixie’ case – it was a tragedy what happened but such a rare occurrence that the press jumped on it. In waiting to see the outrage regarding the tragic events of a few weeks ago when 8 people in a minibus were killed after a lorry crashed into them and the state the driver was allegedly in….
Well, you have to realise
Well, you have to realise that the Daily Mail currently runs Britain. This government is so scared of doing anything that will incur the criticism of the editor of the daily mail. This explains why they focus on the minor splinter of deaths attributable to cyclists rather than the massive beam that is deaths attributable to drivers.
One thing you have to
One thing you have to remember is in the fixie death the pedestrian was crossing the road whilst not paying attention if she had used the crossing as per highway code if he had a front brake as per the highway code perhaps she would be alive and he wouldn’t be in jail. If car drivers gave more room if they didn’t become frustrated by their time behind the wheel. In a perfect world none of this would happen you can’t legislate for fuckwits, jaywalkers or self important car owners it will still happen it’s human nature the more you are encompassed by rules the more the traces will be kicked. The government will persecute the minority of voters not the group who are the wrongdoing.
ciderman_100 wrote:
I don’t think the Highway Code says anything about either of those things. In any case, there is no requirement in law for pedestrians to use pedestrian crossings, and it would be a very bad idea to make such a law.
There is, on the other hand, a legal requirement to have two independent braking systems on your bike, for good reasons.
By the way, Jesse Norman is a
By the way, Jesse Norman is a man not a lady. Mr Farrelly who wrote the piece ought to know that. It would be no bad thing if more of us were aware of who the minister for cycling is, and wrote polite but persuasive letters setting out some of the points which have been made in the comments here.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Yes write to Jesse Norman and your own MP, our own lack of action on this matter will be our downfall.
My life fades. The vision
My life fades. The vision dims. All that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos, ruined dreams, this wasted land. But most of all, I remember the road warrior the man we called Max. To understand who he was we have to go back to the other time, when the world was powered by the black fuel and the desert sprouted great cities of pipe and steel — gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten two mighty warrior tribes went to war and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel they were nothing. They’d built a house of straw. The thundering machines sputtered and stopped. Their leaders talked and talked and talked, but nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world crumbled. Cities exploded — a whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear. Men began to feed on men.
On the roads it was a white-line nightmare. Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice, and in this maelstrom of decay ordinary men were battered and smashed — men like Max, the warrior Max. In the roar of an engine, he lost everything and became a shell of a man, a burnt-out desolate man, a man haunted by the demons of his past, a man who wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here, in this blighted place, that he learned to live again.
hawkinspeter wrote:
No! No more talk! We go in! We kill! We’ll kill them !
Dare I utter these words and
Dare I utter these words and of course they may well come back to bite me on the behind rather hard, but what with Brexit and other issues surrounding Brexit etc. I dare say that this may well be very low on the list of things to change right now. If not then the government has it’s priorities all wrong for this country.
Rossired wrote:
Well, Brexit is proof that they do have their priorities arse-about-tit. The only reason a referendum was called was as a sop to Tory backbenchers. Don’t trust this bunch to even display warped logic – the only thing predictable about them is their stupidity and ineptitude.
davel wrote:
Meanwhile the Labour shadow education secretary couldn’t even manage 5 GCSEs.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
That’ll learn em for their parents not paying them through Eton, what what!
davel wrote:
Meanwhile the Labour shadow education secretary couldn’t even manage 5 GCSEs.
— Yorkshire wallet That’ll learn em for their parents not paying them through Eton, what what!— davel
It’s ok, Diane Abbott went to Cambridge.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I am not sure what relevance the number of GCSEs or if the University was OxBridge has in proving “stupidity and ineptitude” or not.
Academic success and successful application of learning are two distinctly different things.
For example, I did very poorly (to put it mildly) on my GCSE exams because at that age I could not see the relevance of academia so left not long after to start working. After 8 years working in retail management I finally understood how academia could be applied to real world activities. I decided to go to university as a mature student and obtained a nice business degree and currently do well in Business Consultant and Executive roles.
On the other hand I have a family member who went straight from High School to College to OxBridge University on a full scholarship and came out with a 1st degree in English. Apart from a short stint as a postal worker they have spent the vast majority of the last three decades unemployed as they do not have the ability to apply academic learning to real world scenarios.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Aye, the Tories don’t have a monopoly on stupid, or being out of their depth and too thick to see it. But this current shower of shit is as bad as I’ve seen.
Road.cc wrote:
Typo or are the remaining 3500 victims occupants of motor vehicles? Still a horrendously disproportionate response.
Maybe if the Gvt followed through on their 2014 promise to review traffic laws as a whole, more cyclists wouldn’t feel like they have to ride aggressively to survive on the roads…
I don’t wish to alarm anyone
I don’t wish to alarm anyone that the outcome of this enquiry has been pre-judged, but I have been made aware that the government are already building special prison facilities to hold those convicted of cycling in a public place.
Yep, that sounds about right.
Yep, that sounds about right…. two high profile incidents about cycling and the government loses its shit…. thousands of other people killed in accidents involving motor vehicles…. but they are not a priority.
It just goes to highlight the double standards that cyclists are subjected to on a daily basis.
If a cyclist cycles down a shared use path, and rings their bell several times, and passes the pedestrian at about 12mph, giving them about 2 feet of clearance (which was as much as the path allowed)…. they are called bloody hooligan.
Yet a car driver can pass by a cyclist with a similar, or normally greater speed differential, giving a few inches of clearance, so that the car driver can join the queue of stationary traffic 30 yards down the road….. and apparently it’s the cyclists fault for not giving the car enough room to overtake….. go figure
To further my post above,
To further my post above, http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/keen-accomplished-cheltenham-cyclist-dies-436755.
I wonder why that didn’t make the headline news either!
I hope the family of the cyclist asks to meet with ministers asking for a change in the law in order to prosecute pedestrians who by their own actions, cause death of another!
so, the sad part of this is
so, the sad part of this is that they’ll do a knee-jerk review and as a sop to the frothing Daily Mail readers, they’ll increase fines and also make helmets mandatory along with carrying ID…
Australian style response claiming it’s all about making cyclists safer…
Would be interesting to know
Would be interesting to know how many of the pedestrian/bicyclist KSIs occurred due to the cyclist being illegally on the pavement (as opposed to the Aliston case). Apparently the government doesn’t keep stats to make that distinction.
But if, as I suspect, a lot of the collisions occur on the footway, then the solution would be to provide dedicated cycling space to get the pavement-racers off there.
Now open for comment on the
Now open for comment on the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41337440#comment_128136295
If you care to voice an opinion and mark those of others according to how you feel about the topic.
If its treated the same as
If its treated the same as ‘Dangerous Driving’, Charlie can expect to get out on appeal with a retrospecive fine 😮 This proposed new law/ waste of time and money only serves to address some political devision and reinforce it in the attempt to gain the populist vote :-/
The Aliston case makes a
The Aliston case makes a contrast with the Squire/Sinden case. In which the driver made some statements that seem rather unlikely to be true
(e.g. that his phone sent multiple texts while he was driving because ‘an object fell on the capacitative screen’ in such a way as to trigger a screen intended to detect human fingers, and to form words), and where his defense was that that Squire came off a (ridiculously narrow and grass-covered) verge (that it’s rather hard to imagine any cyclist choosing to cycle on in the first place) onto the road too close (14 seconds of travel time) in front of him for him to avoid hitting him.
He also initially claimed he never saw Squire, then changed his story to make all sorts of claims about what he saw him do (e.g. getting on and off the narrow, kerbed, verge, swerving out to the centre of the lane in front of the van, etc)
Sinden of course got off completely. No discussion of any charges of perjury, no interest from the Daily Mail as far as I’m aware.
I just can’t see anything but a blatant double-standard in comparing the two cases. The justice system in this country is broken, in this respect as in many others.
The law isn’t the problem, it
The law isn’t the problem, it’s Jury’s repeated unwillingness to convict ’embattled’ motorists.
STiG911 wrote:
The problem is surely that the test jurors are invited to apply is relative to their experience as drivers. Since most of them will be aware of doing stupid things from time to time they are generally willing to discount all but the most egregious errors.
This is also why we should fear and oppose the dangerous/ careless suggestion – most jurors will have no or little recent cycling experience and will, I suspect, judge cycling relative to their desires of what cyclists should do ( wear helmet and hivbiz, stay in the gutter, have lights, but not too bright, …)
If there’s a new offence of
If there’s a new offence of Dangerous cycling, surely there should be a similar offence of Dangerous walking. If someone steps off the pavement in front of a cyclist, not giving them enough time to stop or avoid them, a collision occurs and the cyclist dies, surely the pedestrian is at fault in just the same way.
mikepridmorewood wrote:
I suspect this might be the point when we get formal jaywalking laws in the UK, unfortunately…
brooksby wrote:
Yeah. While I am not keen on pedestrians being used as some sort of stalking horse to attack cyclists I am also not keen on any laws which further consecrate the road as a place on which humans are reluctantly allowed to exist.
Most pedestrians and most cyclists have enough skin in the game to wish to avoid collisions with each other. Motorized traffic is a completely different kettle of fish to which other rules should be applied.
Let’s not get distracted into a peds vs. cyclists debate when it should be peds+cyclists versus 4x4s.
It can be no mistake that the
It can be no mistake that the first part of this review looks into penalising cyclists first. This is a very serious threat to the hobby I love.
Very, very serious.
kitsunegari wrote:
Quick show of hands: how many people think that this review will end up saying that there’s no place for human-powered vehicles on modern roads…?
brooksby wrote:
Almost certainly the endgame. And it’s not only about ‘hobbies’ – it’s also about throwing away one if the best possible public health interventions.
brooksby wrote:
Have you hacked our webcams?
I’m interested in whether they’ll try to ban horse riders from the roads as well.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Probably not ban horses: far too many hunting and shooting people vote conservative, I suspect.
(and: I couldn’t possibly comment 😉 )
Make it a condition of the UK
Make it a condition of the UK driving test that motorists first of all HAVE to pass a cycling proficiency test by demonstrating their competence to ride a bike for at least half an hour through real-life urban traffic.Throw in some multi-lane roundabouts and turning right off dual carriageways for good measure.
If your riding is so poor that it causes potential danger to yourself or unnecessarily impedes other traffic then you don’t get to sit your driving test.Until you pass.
Only exemptions would be for those unable to ride a bike through some disability.
And the driving test needs to be made harder. Far harder than it is at the moment.
FFS, I couldn’t even bring
FFS, I couldn’t even bring myself to read the whole article. It is so depressingly predictable.
Seems we’ve taken a major wrong turn somewhere and now we are completely lost. Somehow we need to wipe the slate clean and start again!
This country.
This country.
Alliston was prosecuted under an existing law and imprisoned for 18 months. As a reaction to that, a legal review would suggest that the authorities feel that his conviction should have been for a more serious crime and his punishment should have been harsher. Which is ludicrous.
I’ve been had off by a zombie phone-obsessed ped, resulting in a “sore elbow” for the ped and the usual road rash for me. Had I died, I wonder what law the police would have prosecuted the ped under? If at all, obviously.
My 3 point plan for road
My 3 point plan for road safety improvements :-
Reduce all speed limits by 10 mph (excluding existing 20mph zones) and fine anyone who breaks these limits (roaming speed camera checks) one month’s salary and 3 points on their license.
a 2 year driving ban for using a mobile phone behind the wheel.
Implement presumed liability for any accident involving a car and a pedestrian/cyclist, and increase minimum sentencing guidelines (and longer ban lengths) where evidence that the driver (or cyclist) was at fault/driving dangerously, and accept dashcam/handlebar camera footage as evidence in prosecutions.
I drive quite a lot (more than I’d prefer) and I’d be happy to accept these kinds of rules (afterall it’s just stricter enforcement of laws that already exist) to ensure greater safety when travelling by any means. People lobbying against changes to the law are demonstrating an intention to break the law surely?
I’d settle for the current
I’d settle for the current careless/dangerous driving laws to be replaced with careless/dangerous road use laws. ie extend the current road laws to cover all road users, be they motorists, cyclists, skate boarders or pedestrians crossing the road.
The law change would make little material difference to cyclists who already ride considerately (that’s 99.999% of us right?), or pedestrians who look before crossing the road. The press could then move on to another of their pet click-bait subjects and the focus could move back to making an actual difference to road safety.
bobbk wrote:
Only if there were a way to ensure most jurors on cycling cases had the sort of recent and substantial experience of cycling that most will have of driving. Otherwise convicting cyclists will almost certainly be a lot easier. Or we could, you know, just leave the law alone rather than worrying over one event.
bobbk wrote:
This. One law, for all road users. And rather than ‘causing death’, it should be ‘causing danger of death or injury. Penalties to be determined according to the severity of the danger caused.
No road users should be behaving in a way which causes foreseeable danger to others. And people shouldn’t get away with it simply because they got lucky and didn’t happen to actually kill or maim anyone – otherwise the chances are that they’ll just keep doing it until they do.
And totally driven by the
And totally driven by the media. There may be libertarians in the Government but as current events are showing the media wind up the populace who the Government then respond to.
So much anti cycling sentiment is now driven by the media. They have to try to be PC about how they report other “minorities”. So we’re an easy target.
Don’t worry, the daily mail
Don’t worry, the daily mail has a completley unbiased and open account of the topic…….errr no
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4904570/Cyclists-mow-pedestrians-face-14-years-prison.html
Simmo72 wrote:
“It will also look at ways to make Britain’s roads safer for responsible cyclists.”
Who’s responsibility is it to decide whether a cyclist is responsible? And if deemed irresponsible does that mean they can run you off the road with impunity?
KevM wrote:
Don’t worry, the daily mail has a completley unbiased and open account of the topic…….errr no
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4904570/Cyclists-mow-pedestrians-face-14-years-prison.html
— KevM “It will also look at ways to make Britain’s roads safer for responsible cyclists.” Who’s responsibility is it to decide whether a cyclist is responsible? And if deemed irresponsible does that mean they can run you off the road with impunity?— Simmo72
In practice I suspect that is exactly what it will mean.
Simmo72 wrote:
“Official figures show that in 2015, two pedestrians were killed and 96 seriously injured after being hit by a bicycle. Every year more than 100 cyclists are killed and more than 3,000 seriously injured on British roads.” I love how the Daily Fail actually quoted these figures in their article yet still managed to completely miss the bigger picture.
Libertarians don’t make me
Libertarians don’t make me laugh.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department/amp
Librarians don’t make me
Librarians don’t make me laugh.
Just this weekend I was taken
Just this weekend I was taken out by an idiot in a BMW that didn’t look. Forced me right off the road causing damage to my bike and personal injury. He stopped long enough to ensure I didn’t damage his car and to scream at me asking ‘did you hit my car?’, then he fucked off without even asking if I was ok. Rang 101 to report a hit and run but was told that because he didn’t actually hit me and only forced me to crash its only classed as me falling off my bike so they weren’t interested. Not even a reference number.
The police/government aren’t interested in our safety.
KevM wrote:
You’re often better off filling in an online form to report the incident. You can check all the relevant bits about fearing for your safety and that way it can be treated as an assault if you’ve got any camera evidence to back you up.
Do you know what… bring the
Do you know what… bring the laws in line with motor vehicles… i’m fine with that.
For a start, it’ll provide clearer guidelines about how to judge certain instances. For instance, how is anyone going to ever get off a case of ‘wanton and furious cycling’? What current jury would say not guilty when they see anyone cycling on a road as crazy!
So thats a positive.
Also, its a non-event. More clearer, arguably stricter but potentially not, laws for an extremely rare event. The 1-3 cyclists this will effect are unlikely to feel a difference.
And its for that second reason why these reforms will be passed. Their relative pointlessness means that they’ll be no biggy to bring in.
what worries me more is the review of cycling safety being included at the same time. I can visualise no circumstance where this will be a genuine review of cycling safety in the current climate, more an exercise to identify the easiest way to publically show greater control o cycling (in the name of safety).
So… I will suggest it’ll be one of more of the following;
– Mandatory helmet use (easy enough to implement)
– Cycling bans from all dual carriageways
– Mandatory day lighting
– Mandatory use of hi-viz equipment
What fun…
Jimmy Ray, I think you could
Jimmy Ray, I think you could be right. So it’s time to be heard on any of the media you use such as comments in articles the national and local press, social media, writing to your MP etc. Just make sure it’s the other lot that are abusive , not you. I was pleased to see that some of the recent comments to the Mail’s article
http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=80023X1531141&site=road.cc&xs=1&isjs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-4904570%2FCyclists-mow-pedestrians-face-14-years-prison.html&xguid=7129d62365074bb28cdc0d1aa98fd21b&xuuid=97cc2f3d82bad41e116303c621c36252&xsessid=93ff87b0c9dcf8238cf09a9a5572cc34&xcreo=0&xed=0&sref=http%3A%2F%2Froad.cc%2Fcontent%2Fnews%2F229572-government-announces-cycle-safety-review-wake-alliston-case&pref=http%3A%2F%2Froad.cc%2F&xtz=-60
were actually quite helpful. So someone’s making a start.
If you make your point no-one else will do it for you.
Is it illegal to send bags of
Is it illegal to send bags of faeces through the Royal Mail?
Ush wrote:
it’s positively encouraged when you reach the age of 60 and do a bowel cancer test.
ConcordeCX wrote:
I believe in being pro-active about my health. And, in order not to burden the NHS I am going to start sending some out for review and inspection from a selected shortlist of people that I have been compiling. They’re not all doctors, but judging by their own public production of, and affinity with, effluvia I have every confidence that they’re the right people to receive samples.
Taking cues from media
Taking cues from media-generated frenzy directed against cyclists that I observed on the BBC this morning, perhaps we should lobby for pedestrians to wear mandatory helmets to pritect tgem should they walk out in front of us and compulsory hi-viz clothing to make them easier to spot. This might also reduce pedestrian/jogger, pedestrian/pedestrian and pedestrian/skateboard collisions thought I doubt it would make any difference to the number run over by motorista…
The interest in the Alliston
The interest in the Alliston case also contrasts sharply to the lack of interest in last weeks incident in Sureey where a driver ploughed into a bunch of people walking in an unlit country lane and killed some of them. Not even arrested. Hard to see how the driver was not culpable as thet were clearly driving too quickly to stop when presented with the need to do so. No doubt this will be a “momentary distraction” and points at worst..
Nigel_2003 wrote:
I note there’s also fuss about the need to restrict the sale of these dangerous brakeless bikes. Fair enough, they’ve been responsible to the deaths of at least one person over the last 10 years.
In contrast, diesel cars have only killed about 200,000 people across Europe over that time. So clearly there’s no urgency there.
1>>200,000 in motorist-maths.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
This is at the core of the whole discussion. Motor vehicles either directly or indirectly kill hundreds of times more people every year than cyclists, but because we have built a society which is pretty much completely dependent upon them – or seems to be, in the eyes of the average Joe or Josephine – then we can’t make any major changes and address the real issues because it will inconvenience or annoy too many people. Instead, we’ll just pi$$ around and fiddle at the edges and the minorities so we look like we’re doing Something Serious.
(Google the picture about congestion with cars driven by internal combustion engines vs cars driven by electric motors. They look the same, and that’s before you get onto questions about the required infrastructure for all that charging and generating all that additional electricity. (Sorry, thats a bit OT)).
Original text of the letter
Original text of the letter from Jesse Norman, Under Secretary of State for Roads, to British Cycling, Cycling UK, Bicycle Association, Sustrans, Will Norman – TfL walking and cycling commissioner, Chris Boardman – TfGM walking and cycling commissioner, National Courier & Despatch Association, Institute of Couriers and the Cycle to Work Alliance
The original letter, hosted on Google Drive.
This is not going to turn out well for the Right Hon. Mr Norman.
Argos74 wrote:
St Chris will tear him a new one.
Will Norman will issue 2,000 words that say zilch and do less.
Argos74 wrote:
Well, gosh, my mind’s put at rest now. I’m glad this is going to be a serious look at road safety and not just cycle-bashing…
So a cyclist (admittedly a
So a cyclist (admittedly a bell end) kills a pedestrian who walks out onto the road without looking, gets an 18 month custodial sentence….. yet a lorry driver (professional driver) runs a red light and kills a mother and daughter crossing at a pedestrian crossing – gets 14 months……..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4008720/Harrowing-dashcam-footage-shows-lorry-driver-run-red-light-seconds-killed-mother-43-six-year-old-daughter-pedestrian-crossing-outside-Iceland.html
Apologies but this news story was from the Daily Heil
craigstitt wrote:
My current favourite (?) WTF news story is the van driver who went up onto the pavement to park, killing a young girl playing on said pavement. His defence was that he couldn’t see anything so assumed it was all fine. He was left to go free from court.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437
brooksby wrote:
And this staggering case, where a lorry driver who was blind in one eye failed to notice an elderly couple, ran them over and killed them; nine months suspended sentence. Some utterly incredible posts from the driver and his daughter, literally beyond belief.
“Family’s shock as half-blind lorry driver who killed couple walks free”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/familys-shock-as-halfblind-lorry-driver-who-killed-couple-walks-free-a3176861.html?amp
I certainly hope this review will be thorough and conscientious.
Cycling home from work last
Cycling home from work last night my kids were nearly orphaned by a driver that overtook me at the last possible second to force his way between me and a pedestrian island before slamming his brakes on and immediately turning left – and that includes me moving into primary position having left the earlier cycle lane to try and prevent exactly this happening:
https://goo.gl/maps/3gR85Uo7KRo
Must have saved him all of 5 seconds.
Really wish I’d had a camera running. Didn’t get his number plate and really couldn’t be bothered as nothing will happen to him anyway. In hindsight, I wish I’d followed him to get it and asked him what the hell he was thinking – he must live near there.
Absolutely no excuse for his behaviour, but I’m starting to think that drivers consider it some sort of sport!
LastBoyScout wrote:
Unless you could prove how close the car was to you with your video evidence the police won’t be interested….. somewhere in the trial here is my experience of exactly that scenario. Police response was pretty much “and what do you expect us to do”
We have had numerous
We have had numerous pedestrians, using the public transport networks, and drivers going about commiting terrorism acts killing and hurting innocent people including children.
So pedestrians and drivers should be stopped and searched as potential suspects and assessed what danger they pose to the public.
No reports of cyclists involved in any such acts but are at risk from dangerous boyracer drivers, furiously revving their engines, swerving, speeding, blocking up roads and spewing out their poisionous fumes and disgusting black smoke causing cancer and harming children in particular.
Despite cyclists facing all these dangers and further dangers from pedestrians knocking off cyclists from their saddles, they still persue witch-hunt against cyclists just to satisfy now even more poweful anti-cylist lobbyists of mainly lazy fat drivers.
While sad that people get
While sad that people get injured or killed a lot on the road..… more rules to create more fines for the government to collect more money to waste… is probably waht the end result will be