14 yrs - Death by Careless Cycling

14 yrs - Death by Careless Cycling

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

59 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
[redacted]

hondajack85

196 posts

4 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Im a cyclist but I generally agree with this. All these stupid over complex cycle paths between people getting on and off of busses have to go as well.
Cant imagine what imbecile dreamt all this stuff up.

super7

2,002 posts

213 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
I can only imagine that this law would not be used every day, even month or year. The chances of someone being killed by a cyclist are low.....

But when it does happen, I don't think it would be too difficult to judge whether a cyclist was being an idiot or not. i.e. riding on a pavement at 20mph, jumping red lights etc

I think this is a good move, and I also think cyclists should be more accountable for actions than they are now. With the widespread use of dashcams and go-pros's it shouldn't be too difficult to get evidence when a cyclist is being a dick, in the same way that it is for a driver or motorcyclist. Riding without due care and attention would be a good start.


qwerty360

215 posts

50 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Reality:
1. This should have been fixed as a minor issue years ago.
2. It will result in reduced, not increased, penalties for cyclists because they will have to be proportional to sentences given the driving offences; (Seen stats from article on Charlie Alliston; in the year he was convicted only ~40% of drivers convicted of death by offences went to jail; Only ~1/2 of those got sentences over 18 months.)


No doubt the first time a judge has to issue a proportional sentence or a sentence is successfully appealed on this basis down to community service the same government officials who have milked this issue to distract from far bigger problems will milk it again as a distraction, failing to mention that it is a direct result of reluctance to prosecute or jail killer motorists...

JEA1K

2,544 posts

228 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
There's a general election coming up. This law will get the approval of Sun/Mail reading gammons who have signed posters of Jeremy Clarkson in their hallways at home ...

Daveyraveygravey

2,054 posts

189 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
I read somewhere recently that every cyclist that has killed someone has gone to jail. I haven't been able to verify this statement, but I know damn well that every motorist that kills someone has NOT gone to jail.
85 people a day are killed or seriously injured on our roads, most of them by drivers, and most of them avoidable. These people supposdely have passed a test, have insurance and make sure their vehicles are readworthy. Why are they not starting on the real problem?

Siao

1,002 posts

45 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Daveyraveygravey said:
I read somewhere recently that every cyclist that has killed someone has gone to jail. I haven't been able to verify this statement, but I know damn well that every motorist that kills someone has NOT gone to jail.
85 people a day are killed or seriously injured on our roads, most of them by drivers, and most of them avoidable. These people supposdely have passed a test, have insurance and make sure their vehicles are readworthy. Why are they not starting on the real problem?
This is a good article. 3 deaths by bikes in 2022. Only 3. About 5 per day killed by motor vehicles.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/there-are-more-...

Julian Scott

3,222 posts

29 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
It's a bandwagon to jump on. If you genuinely are at fault in someone's death, a custodial sentence is appropriate.

BUT.... Every near-miss or soft-collision I have seen with a pedestrian personally (whether with bike, car, scooter, buggy or another human) has been at least in part caused by the pedestrian not looking where they were walking, suddenly chaining direction or being consumed by their phone 6 inches in front of their face.

numtumfutunch

4,836 posts

143 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Siao said:
Daveyraveygravey said:
I read somewhere recently that every cyclist that has killed someone has gone to jail. I haven't been able to verify this statement, but I know damn well that every motorist that kills someone has NOT gone to jail.
85 people a day are killed or seriously injured on our roads, most of them by drivers, and most of them avoidable. These people supposdely have passed a test, have insurance and make sure their vehicles are readworthy. Why are they not starting on the real problem?
This is a good article. 3 deaths by bikes in 2022. Only 3. About 5 per day killed by motor vehicles.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/there-are-more-...
Cows kill approximately double that number per year

Whats Rishi and the Daily Mail going to do about that?
Besides turning them into steaks obvs

Cheers

mac96

4,270 posts

148 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Julian Scott said:
It's a bandwagon to jump on. If you genuinely are at fault in someone's death, a custodial sentence is appropriate.

BUT.... Every near-miss or soft-collision I have seen with a pedestrian personally (whether with bike, car, scooter, buggy or another human) has been at least in part caused by the pedestrian not looking where they were walking, suddenly chaining direction or being consumed by their phone 6 inches in front of their face.
That was certainly my experience as a central London cycle commuter. I saved a pedestrian from at least minor injury several times a week, simply by being more alert than them and keeping well away from the kerb.

I worry that pedestrian casualties will not reduce while we continue to pretend they are not avoidable by the pedestrian. OK some aren't, but an awful lot are!

dudleybloke

20,352 posts

191 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Can we bring in jaywalking laws too!
Certain areas are terrible for them.

Geffg

1,220 posts

110 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
So going on about a driver not seeing you, and I’m sure she didn’t nearly hit you intentionally, you find it ok to possibly damage her car? So if you nearly hit a car or pedestrian by accident is it ok for them to damage your bike?
We all can make mistakes, not thinking, but most people don’t generally try to hit others. Making a mistake doesn’t warrant damaging someone’s car.
As you can tell it really annoys me the way cyclists think it’s fine to damage a car or smash someone’s mirror which can be £1000 and that’s ok.
Some cyclists break laws and so do some motorists. No one is above the law and I’m sure very few never break any rules.
We are all human and things will happen.

OutInTheShed

8,744 posts

31 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
dudleybloke said:
Can we bring in jaywalking laws too!
Certain areas are terrible for them.
Sometime pedestrians, hikers, dog walkers etc make cars and lorries seem like sensible predictable things controlled by people looking where they are going.

Careless cycling off road might encompass quite a few riders.
How legally 'dangerous' is MTB riding? What level of risk taking is acceptable?

Tindersticks

720 posts

5 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
This week the morons in charge have decided to push cyclists and sex education onto the little culture war board. And the usual right-wing gibbons will lap it up whilst moaning about the war on motorists and Lycra louts.


Forester1965

2,586 posts

8 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's an objective test.

monthou

4,790 posts

55 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Forester1965 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's an objective test.
Really? How do you measure it then?

Graveworm

8,544 posts

76 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Dangerous, careless and cycling and without due care have been offences for decades and have the same test as driving. Also like driving this is just about higher sentences if there are more severe outcomes. I understand the drivers for this but it's always seemed wrong to me that the driver/rider could have the same mindset, do exactly the same thing with no way of knowing what the outcome would be but we punish the outcome not the act or the intent.

bristolracer

5,610 posts

154 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Calm down, calm down….
It’s just updating the rule book.
Up until now the only offence a cyclist could be charged with was ‘wanton and furious riding’ an offence dating back centuries and aimed at horse riders, with a maximum term of 2 years.
The new law also covers electric scooters and e-bikes.

The cells are not going to be full of MAMILs any time soon.






Dingu

4,184 posts

35 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
The sentences for death by dangerous are patheticly light anyway.

Graveworm

8,544 posts

76 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Siao said:
Daveyraveygravey said:
I read somewhere recently that every cyclist that has killed someone has gone to jail. I haven't been able to verify this statement, but I know damn well that every motorist that kills someone has NOT gone to jail.
85 people a day are killed or seriously injured on our roads, most of them by drivers, and most of them avoidable. These people supposdely have passed a test, have insurance and make sure their vehicles are readworthy. Why are they not starting on the real problem?
This is a good article. 3 deaths by bikes in 2022. Only 3. About 5 per day killed by motor vehicles.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/there-are-more-...


It's a harsh truth that the numbers are very low but cycling is only 1% of journeys by distance and cars are 86% so whilst you are definitely far more likely to be killed by a car, a bicycle is more dangerous. It's when they say only 4% of people killed or seriously injured by red light jumping, are hit by cyclists that again means for the same journey a cyclist is more than 4 times more likely to kill or seriously injure someone running a red light, than a car driver.
Those figures are also slightly disingenuous as despite being told many times they are not using the right figures cycling UK use the Stats19 figures, which only capture roads used by motor vehicles so exclude cycle paths, pavements, footpaths, bridleways etc.
Cycling is great and a real benefit, I love cycling but the resistance to anything negative about cycling or cyclists and the knee jerk "But others are worse" doesn't sit well with me. It's possible to promote cycling, whilst still wanting to see more done to improve road safety, for everyone, by improving the standards of drivers and cyclists.


Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th May 10:11