Gov consultation on new cycling offences

[anonymous-user]

The government is giving everyone the opportunity to comment on proposals for new cycling offences


"Seeks views on proposed new offences of causing death or serious injury while cycling and changes to the existing offences of dangerous and careless cycling.

This consultation closes at

11:45pm on 5 November 2018"


"The consultation invites views on government proposals to introduce new offences of causing death or serious injury while cycling, and other changes to some existing cycling offences.

It recognises the difficulties of trying to create general parity between cyclists and drivers in terms of licensing and insurance, for example, but seeks to more closely align penalties for offences that result in death or serious injury."


https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/new-cy...

[Welshbeef]

Number 1
Adhere to the speed limits of the road - with 20mph limits it’s crazy with bikes under and overtaking you (even happens in 30mph limits).

Number 2
No undertaking overtaking only unless in a cyclist section of the road.

Number 3
No piss taking of box junctions and standing in the middle of it waiting to get the jump on your own lights

Number 4
Mandatory insurance as people are getting hurt and dying I’d hate to see a cyclist have to sell all his worldly possessions

[S100HP]

Any other comments?

Given you've more chance of being killed by a cow than a bicycle, I'd suggest the effort in getting this law passed is better spent elsewhere, maybe try increasing the penalties for killing people with a carwhich equates to 99.4% of deaths on the roads.

[hyperblue]

Typical of this government, this consultation is aimed to look tough to morons reading the gutter press, whilst the reality is that this is a non-problem.

At the same time, cyclists continue to be killed and injured by drivers with little consequence for the driver.

[Some Gump]

Welshbeef said:

Number 1
Adhere to the speed limits of the road - with 20mph limits it’s crazy with bikes under and overtaking you (even happens in 30mph limits).

Lets be honest, cyclists whipping about well in excess of the limit just isn't even a thing. Downhill you can do big speeds, but people descending quickly would overtake anyway, not whip down a 3 foot gap at.speed.

Number 2
No undertaking overtaking only unless in a cyclist section of the road.

> Doesn't work. When is undertaking filtering? Totally subjective. What about drivers overtaking when there's an obvious red light in 100 yards? "Cyclist section of road" means very little too because the vast majority of our cycle lanes are totally unworkable.

Number 3
No piss taking of box junctions and standing in the middle of it waiting to get the jump on your own lights

> Lights should be obeyed now. If they introduced a fine, most cyclists wouldn't object.

Number 4
Mandatory insurance as people are getting hurt and dying I’d hate to see a cyclist have to sell all his worldly possessions
> See no reason why not. Only a crazy person doesn't join British cycling for the insurance. It's like 20 quid a year!

Eta this feels like a kneejerk to that tit who was riding down a pavement and knocked that kid over. No decent cyclist would argue against punishment for th is sort of thing.

[anonymous-user]

Welshbeef said:

Number 1
Adhere to the speed limits of the road - with 20mph limits it’s crazy with bikes under and overtaking you (even happens in 30mph limits).

Number 2
No undertaking overtaking only unless in a cyclist section of the road.

Number 3
No piss taking of box junctions and standing in the middle of it waiting to get the jump on your own lights

Number 4
Mandatory insurance as people are getting hurt and dying I’d hate to see a cyclist have to sell all his worldly possessions

Number 1
Drove home on the M5 this evening, hundreds of cars broke the speed limit, it’s crazy with cars over/undertaking you at 70mph...

Number 2
All the road is a “cyclist section of the road”. Are you banning motorcycles from filtering too?

Number 3
Agreed. Though if cars could stop parking in the ASL that might help.

Number 4
Department for Transport figures for 2016 show that 448 pedestrians were killed on Britain’s roads, but only three cases involved bicycles. So that’s a whole load of legislation for a Govt dept to initiate and manage because 3 pedestrian deaths a year involved a bicycle.....

[Welshbeef]

I remember as a kid in North Wales Mr BIB pulled up my mum for me and her riding on a footpath. (Footpath was between two remote villages but the road was 60mph, no one really beyond our household and a couple of neighbours ever used said path anyway) - she said no way would she allow a young primary school kid to cycle on the road - and oddly enough at the exact point someone flew past... that’s fair enough IMHO.

What’s not is adults or old enough kids who are capable

[boxedin]

time.of.money.and.waste.

next.

[SVS]

It looks like Chris Boardman has replied to the consultation in no uncertain terms.

[Welshbeef]

pablo said:

Number 1
Drove home on the M5 this evening, hundreds of cars broke the speed limit, it’s crazy with cars over/undertaking you at 70mph...

Number 2
All the road is a “cyclist section of the road”. Are you banning motorcycles from filtering too?

Number 3
Agreed. Though if cars could stop parking in the ASL that might help.

Number 4
Department for Transport figures for 2016 show that 448 pedestrians were killed on Britain’s roads, but only three cases involved bicycles. So that’s a whole load of legislation for a Govt dept to initiate and manage because 3 pedestrian deaths a year involved a bicycle.....

Number 1
Police need to do their jobs and frankly let’s gets Specs cameras on every U.K. road noone can break any speed limit black box it too and fine hard
Dotto undertaking in Cars not permitted police need to do more
But undertaking in Cars might get a bent fender a cyclist would be dead or wheelchair if lucky that’s the crux of it you don’t expect anyone to be undertaking when they shouldn’t.

Number 2
Yes - use he bus lane instead.

Number 4
I’ve no idea but the direct cause of a death might have been caused by a cyclist but the car killed them. Don’t know but if it saves 1 life and let’s call I a child’s life surely rules and emulations are fine.

[anonymous-user]

Some Gump said:

This feels like a kneejerk to that tit who was riding down a pavement and knocked that kid over. No decent cyclist would argue against punishment for this sort of thing.

Like all the kneejerk reactions forced onto haulers.

hyperblue said:

At the same time, cyclists continue to be killed and injured by drivers with little consequence for the driver.

Well they do have a habit of riding like dicks/ninjas up the inside of trucks.
How much have cyclists costs the economy and transport industry you know the ones emblazoned with signs everywhere saying cyclists stay back, pass other side etc, compulsory cycle training for drivers, now bloody speakers activated every time the indicator is touched.
And pray what do the cyclists do in return ? Nothing except continue blasting at speed thru red lights, undertaking, riding without lights etc etc etc.
Take some foooooking responsibly for your own actions as a group rather than trying to blame everyone else when one of your own brethren dies to their stupidity/ lack of situational awareness.

[The_Jackal]

There aren't enough coppers to police all the cars and people around most of the country anyway. So what difference are new legislation going to make if even the current ones aren't adhered to in the first place which would make everyone safer anyway.

[lllnorrislll]

speedyguy said:

Well they do have a habit of riding like dicks/ninjas up the inside of trucks.
How much have cyclists costs the economy and transport industry you know the ones emblazoned with signs everywhere saying cyclists stay back, pass other side etc, compulsory cycle training for drivers, now bloody speakers activated every time the indicator is touched.
And pray what do the cyclists do in return ? Nothing except continue blasting at speed thru red lights, undertaking, riding without lights etc etc etc.
Take some foooooking responsibly for your own actions as a group rather than trying to blame everyone else when one of your own brethren dies to their stupidity/ lack of situational awareness.

Yet the current court case following the death of Karla Roman, shows that we still have drivers (ok coach not hgv) deliberately ignoring ASLs, ignoring cycling facilities and killing cyclists?

[lllnorrislll]

speedyguy said:

Well they do have a habit of riding like dicks/ninjas up the inside of trucks.
How much have cyclists costs the economy and transport industry you know the ones emblazoned with signs everywhere saying cyclists stay back, pass other side etc, compulsory cycle training for drivers, now bloody speakers activated every time the indicator is touched.
And pray what do the cyclists do in return ? Nothing except continue blasting at speed thru red lights, undertaking, riding without lights etc etc etc.
Take some foooooking responsibly for your own actions as a group rather than trying to blame everyone else when one of your own brethren dies to their stupidity/ lack of situational awareness.

Yet the current court case following the death of Karla Roman, shows that we still have drivers (ok coach not hgv) deliberately ignoring ASLs, ignoring cycling facilities and killing cyclists?

[yellowjack]

speedyguy said:

Some Gump said:

This feels like a kneejerk to that tit who was riding down a pavement and knocked that kid over. No decent cyclist would argue against punishment for this sort of thing.

Like all the kneejerk reactions forced onto haulers.

hyperblue said:

At the same time, cyclists continue to be killed and injured by drivers with little consequence for the driver.

Well they do have a habit of riding like dicks/ninjas up the inside of trucks.
How much have cyclists costs the economy and transport industry you know the ones emblazoned with signs everywhere saying cyclists stay back, pass other side etc, compulsory cycle training for drivers, now bloody speakers activated every time the indicator is touched.
And pray what do the cyclists do in return ? Nothing except continue blasting at speed thru red lights, undertaking, riding without lights etc etc etc.
Take some foooooking responsibly for your own actions as a group rather than trying to blame everyone else when one of your own brethren dies to their stupidity/ lack of situational awareness.

Haven't you got somewhere else to be? Like running over a 4 year-old crossing the road on his way to nursery?

Ref: Edward Sault, BBC South Today, 16 Aug 2018

Because that was a lorry, running over a child. Where a bicycle rider may well have stopped through a sense of self-preservation, or been able to 'hip-swerve' around the family crossing the road. Or perhaps you could go and fiddle with your new phone while driving your wagon on the M3, and hit the back of a queue of stationary vehicles so hard that the last vehicle was completely smashed to pieces to the point where first responders didn't realise there was a dead girl in a small hatchback between the truck and the vehicle it was resting against.

This whole kneejerk reponse is tttish. We have a case in a recent newspaper where some nutjob battered and stabbed a man to death so badly his eye popped out, and yet seven years later this nutjob (who was described by a judge as "posing a significant danger to the public") is looking at release. Seven years served for premeditated murder, aggravated by the fact that he kicked a door down to commit it. And some bunch of tts want to introduce an offence which would carry a maximum tariff of 14 years in prison?

As for Welshbeef's "if it saves even one child's life" bks? It's bks. Children die every day on the roads of the UK, despite reams and reams of legislation prescribing offences for dangerous, careless, and inconsiderate driving. It's just an irrational hatred of cyclists, masked as "concern for public safety". And yet PHers are more than happy to head out for a "spirited hoon" or two, on public roads, and few of us who drive can honestly say we never break the law. So why would any sane person believe that if the offence of "causing death by dangerous cycling" had existed on the morning of 12 February 2016, that Charlie Alliston would have chosen to ride a sensible bike in a more measured manner? He wouldn't, because he's "the type". Same as some 20-something yobbo in an Audi S-Line, racing his pal's M3 along a 30 mph dual carriageway through pedestrian crossings and red traffic lights. Laws already exist to clobber "boy racers" in cars, but they don't "save even one life" most of the time. Alliston was a "boy racer" too, just on a bicycle rather than in a car. And I firmly believe that no amount of legislation would have prevented Kim Briggs' death. Her best chance for continued life would have been to "stop, look, and listen, and continue to look as she crossed the street" - same as we were all taught as kids. And yet, all that drumming into us of the Green Cross Code doesn't prevent a lot of vulnerable people from being injured, and sometimes killed, as they cross roads on a daily basis.

More should be done to stamp out illegal (and often dangerous) drivers before we move on to the road user group that poses a much lesser danger to fellow users. Because I've NEVER been "nearly taken out" on a crossing by a cyclist, but I've had a lot of near misses where car drivers have either "failed to see" or "chosen to ignore" red traffic lights at pedestrian crossings, or just driven straight through zebra crossings I was already using. So fk the knee-jerkers, fk this consultation, screw any new laws resulting from it, and lets have a zero tolerance campaign where we nail these dangerous, ignorant, inconsiderate drivers to the wall for all the offences they commit. The trouble is they've got away with so much for so long that some of them now believe they have the right to do as they like any time they please...

[Kermit power]

yellowjack said:

speedyguy said:

Some Gump said:

This feels like a kneejerk to that tit who was riding down a pavement and knocked that kid over. No decent cyclist would argue against punishment for this sort of thing.

Like all the kneejerk reactions forced onto haulers.

hyperblue said:

At the same time, cyclists continue to be killed and injured by drivers with little consequence for the driver.

Well they do have a habit of riding like dicks/ninjas up the inside of trucks.
How much have cyclists costs the economy and transport industry you know the ones emblazoned with signs everywhere saying cyclists stay back, pass other side etc, compulsory cycle training for drivers, now bloody speakers activated every time the indicator is touched.
And pray what do the cyclists do in return ? Nothing except continue blasting at speed thru red lights, undertaking, riding without lights etc etc etc.
Take some foooooking responsibly for your own actions as a group rather than trying to blame everyone else when one of your own brethren dies to their stupidity/ lack of situational awareness.

Haven't you got somewhere else to be? Like running over a 4 year-old crossing the road on his way to nursery?

Ref: Edward Sault, BBC South Today, 16 Aug 2018

Because that was a lorry, running over a child. Where a bicycle rider may well have stopped through a sense of self-preservation, or been able to 'hip-swerve' around the family crossing the road. Or perhaps you could go and fiddle with your new phone while driving your wagon on the M3, and hit the back of a queue of stationary vehicles so hard that the last vehicle was completely smashed to pieces to the point where first responders didn't realise there was a dead girl in a small hatchback between the truck and the vehicle it was resting against.

This whole kneejerk reponse is tttish. We have a case in a recent newspaper where some nutjob battered and stabbed a man to death so badly his eye popped out, and yet seven years later this nutjob (who was described by a judge as "posing a significant danger to the public") is looking at release. Seven years served for premeditated murder, aggravated by the fact that he kicked a door down to commit it. And some bunch of tts want to introduce an offence which would carry a maximum tariff of 14 years in prison?

As for Welshbeef's "if it saves even one child's life" bks? It's bks. Children die every day on the roads of the UK, despite reams and reams of legislation prescribing offences for dangerous, careless, and inconsiderate driving. It's just an irrational hatred of cyclists, masked as "concern for public safety". And yet PHers are more than happy to head out for a "spirited hoon" or two, on public roads, and few of us who drive can honestly say we never break the law. So why would any sane person believe that if the offence of "causing death by dangerous cycling" had existed on the morning of 12 February 2016, that Charlie Alliston would have chosen to ride a sensible bike in a more measured manner? He wouldn't, because he's "the type". Same as some 20-something yobbo in an Audi S-Line, racing his pal's M3 along a 30 mph dual carriageway through pedestrian crossings and red traffic lights. Laws already exist to clobber "boy racers" in cars, but they don't "save even one life" most of the time. Alliston was a "boy racer" too, just on a bicycle rather than in a car. And I firmly believe that no amount of legislation would have prevented Kim Briggs' death. Her best chance for continued life would have been to "stop, look, and listen, and continue to look as she crossed the street" - same as we were all taught as kids. And yet, all that drumming into us of the Green Cross Code doesn't prevent a lot of vulnerable people from being injured, and sometimes killed, as they cross roads on a daily basis.

More should be done to stamp out illegal (and often dangerous) drivers before we move on to the road user group that poses a much lesser danger to fellow users. Because I've NEVER been "nearly taken out" on a crossing by a cyclist, but I've had a lot of near misses where car drivers have either "failed to see" or "chosen to ignore" red traffic lights at pedestrian crossings, or just driven straight through zebra crossings I was already using. So fk the knee-jerkers, fk this consultation, screw any new laws resulting from it, and lets have a zero tolerance campaign where we nail these dangerous, ignorant, inconsiderate drivers to the wall for all the offences they commit. The trouble is they've got away with so much for so long that some of them now believe they have the right to do as they like any time they please...

In amongst all the anger from both of you, I think the bold parts are really important.

I think we have a big problem with victim shaming - or a lack of it - in this country, and it costs people's lives.

The vast majority of cyclists killed by vehicles (certainly in cities, not sure about elsewhere) are killed by trucks turning left. Whenever this happens, there's a load of noise in the media about what could be done to prevent these large vehicles from killing cyclists, when the obvious answer is that the best way to avoid a large vehicle killing a cyclist when turning left is for there not to be any cyclists to the left of the vehicle.

Far better than a little yellow sign saying "cyclists, please pass on other side", in my mind, would be a large, graphic picture of what happens to cyclists when they are run over by a truck turning left!

I say this not as an irate trucker - I've never driven a truck in my life - but as a cyclist who frequently commutes into Central London and has been shouted at by other cyclists when I've stopped behind a truck at traffic lights rather than carried on up its inside.

As for Kim Briggs, the original claims that she'd been on her phone at the time were shown to be lies in court, but she was still a pedestrian crossing a road. Clearly Charlie Alliston was rightly prosecuted, and "don't speak ill of the dead" will always apply, but what is most likely to cause a reduction in future injuries or deaths? Using her death to push for greater penalties against cyclists (or drivers, truckers or whomever, depending on the incident) or using it to say "regardless of who is right or wrong, please always double-check any situation that could be dangerous"?

Alliston was prosecuted primarily because he was riding an illegal bike with no front brake. What would've happened if he'd been riding a normal bike? There's still no guarantee that he could've stopped in time, and she could still be dead. The problem is, just by saying that, there will be plenty of people who'll get thoroughly outraged about me blaming the pedestrian and defending the cyclist, whereas the important thing is that regardless of whether you're right or wrong, it's better to be alive!

[Zigster]

Just a challenge on the point about riding up the inside of trucks.

I do agree with you - I ride in London a lot and would never ride up the inside of a lorry or bus, and wince when I see other cyclists do it as it is an unnecessary risk. But two things:
1) My understanding is that in a large proportion (majority, even?) of incidents involving cyclists and left-turning trucks, it is the truck which has overtaken the cyclist and then turned left rather than the cyclist undertaking. I don't have any evidence to hand on that so happy to be corrected.
2) I like the way the Dutch design infrastructure which is basically along the lines of assuming all road users are idiots (all road users, not just one type) who will make mistakes from time to time. Rather than telling people to be more careful and then mopping up the mess of the inevitable mistakes, provide infrastructure which prevents the mistakes happening in the first place. So that would mean infrastructure which separated smaller road users from larger road users so there is no need for a debate about whether or not the cyclist rode up the inside or the trucker overtook and turned left.

[BenGismo]

This is basically a backlash and over reaction the death of one woman as mentioned above.

The story was taken on by the media and blown up so much that now people think that cyclists are some sort of major threat to human life. In reality it is absolutely not the case. It really is a situation where some over reporting and one one particular idiot (charlie) has ruined it for the rest of us. Dont forget that he was convicted and went to jail for this.

The statistics clearly show that the threat to pedestrians is still and always has been Cars, Lorrys, buses etc..




They are seriously targeting the right hand column as the demons on the roads??? WTF?

Putting ANY legislation into action to combat the tiny amount of deaths or injuries due to cyclists is hilarious and kneejerk stupidity at its best.

[Harpoon]

Zigster said:

Just a challenge on the point about riding up the inside of trucks.

I do agree with you - I ride in London a lot and would never ride up the inside of a lorry or bus, and wince when I see other cyclists do it as it is an unnecessary risk. But two things:
1) My understanding is that in a large proportion (majority, even?) of incidents involving cyclists and left-turning trucks, it is the truck which has overtaken the cyclist and then turned left rather than the cyclist undertaking. I don't have any evidence to hand on that so happy to be corrected.
.

Witness the Metro tweet recently where they tried to make out the cyclist was at fault here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=19&amp...

https://www.bikebiz.com/community/metro-deletes-vi...

[lauda]

BenGismo said:

This is basically a backlash and over reaction the death of one woman as mentioned above.

The story was taken on by the media and blown up so much that now people think that cyclists are some sort of major threat to human life. In reality it is absolutely not the case. It really is a situation where some over reporting and one one particular idiot (charlie) has ruined it for the rest of us. Dont forget that he was convicted and went to jail for this.

The statistics clearly show that the threat to pedestrians is still and always has been Cars, Lorrys, buses etc..




They are seriously targeting the right hand column as the demons on the roads??? WTF?

Putting ANY legislation into action to combat the tiny amount of deaths or injuries due to cyclists is hilarious and kneejerk stupidity at its best.

Completely agree with this. It's not as if the cyclist who killed the woman last year got away with it due to a lack of appropriate legislation. He's been banged up. And quite rightly so.

This whole thing is a total waste of time and money and is just pandering to anti-cycling brigade.