Proposal for new law to tackle dangerous cyclists.

[jusali]

Cycling law review after death cases

"The government is launching a review into whether a new law is needed to tackle dangerous cycling.

It will consider whether an equivalent offence to causing death by dangerous driving is needed for cyclists.

It comes after Charlie Alliston, who killed Kim Briggs while riding a fixed-gear bike with no front brakes, was convicted under Victorian law."

So need to debate this really? 1 person in 60-70 million deserves this attention? This is reactionary nonsense. I get sick of these emotive issues taking up so much of our governments time it's total bollox..........
Rant over

 

[Teaboy]

Whilst there are clearly more important things the government should be doing (isn't there always?) it's quite apparent that the law needs updating. The law should always be relevant otherwise it becomes a mockery.

Will the updated law oblige cyclists to use stabilisers? I would consider this progress.

 

[Sirena]

Whilst there are clearly more important things the government should be doing (isn't there always?) it's quite apparent that the law needs updating. The law should always be relevant otherwise it becomes a mockery.

Will the updated law oblige cyclists to use stabilisers? I would consider this progress.

I think it might be useful. Cycling is so popular now and a lot of the bully-boy/sense of privilege antics that once were the province of car drivers have transferred quite easily into cyclists.

It was thrown into stark relief by the fact that the fixed-wheel racer was such a cocky strutter in his short appearances on TV.

 

[bemused]

What is wrong with the current law?

 

[dessiato]

Although only one person has been, recently, been found guilty of furious riding, there are many more who have been lucky to not seriously hurt others.

I don't cycle now, when I did, and it was a lot of miles a day, I'd often be shocked by the, frankly, dangerous riding I saw. This year in the UK I often saw people riding very fast in pedestrian areas, I saw people clipped and ridden into. It's only a matter of time before there's another death or serious injury.

I'm not saying all cyclists ride dangerously, but many do. This needs addressing. However, any new law needs to be enforced, otherwise what's the point?

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Populist nonsense.

"Cycle campaigners questioned why ministers were acting urgently over the case when they had delayed a promised review into all road traffic offences and sentencing for more than three years."

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

It's utter bullshit.

 

[Teaboy]

What is wrong with the current law?

Wanton and furious riding

It was a law created for horse riding. If for some reason this ancient law didn't exist or had been repealed there would have been no law to prosecute the charming chap who left two kids without their mother.

The law should always be up to date and relevant.

 

[Pickman's model]

Wanton and furious riding

It was a law created for horse riding. If for some reason this ancient law didn't exist or had been repealed there would have been no law to prosecute the charming chap who left two kids without their mother.

The law should always be up to date and relevant.

1861 by no means ancient compared to the fourteenth century laws still extant.

 

[Teaboy]

Populist nonsense.

"Cycle campaigners questioned why ministers were acting urgently over the case when they had delayed a promised review into all road traffic offences and sentencing for more than three years."

The problem is not that they're reviewing this law its that they are not acting to update road law and make the roads safer for cyclists. That's a scandal but it doesn't mean this law shouldn't be updated either. The government should be capable of doing both.

 

[Pickman's model]

anyway being as brexit is going to dominate parliament's time for the next decade it's not like there'll be parliamentary time found to draft a law let alone pass the damn thing for years to come.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

The problem is not that they're reviewing this law its that they are not acting to update road law and make the roads safer for cyclists. That's a scandal but it doesn't mean this law shouldn't be updated either. The government should be capable of doing both.

Why urgently update this law specifically without doing so in the context of a review of all similar road traffic laws? Doing it in isolation is surely likely to lead to more bad legislation. And it's focusing valuable parliamentary time on the least dangerous vehicular transport.

 

[Pickman's model]

The problem is not that they're reviewing this law its that they are not acting to update road law and make the roads safer for cyclists. That's a scandal but it doesn't mean this law shouldn't be updated either. The government should be capable of doing both.

yeh. but a) we've a crap government; b) we've a crap government doing brexit.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

anyway being as brexit is going to dominate parliament's time for the next decade it's not like there'll be parliamentary time found to draft a law let alone pass the damn thing for years to come.

Who cares about all the complicated Brexit stuff when the government are cracking on down on Lycra louts who flout the law! I knew Theresa May had a backbone after all.

 

[Teaboy]

yeh. but a) we've a crap government; b) we've a crap government doing brexit.

Yup. Given how fast they moved to update fire regs in construction when they were first warned 10 years ago I fully predict this will become law sometime after hover cars are invented.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yup. Given how fast they moved to update fire regs in construction when they were first warned 10 years ago I fully predict this will become law sometime after hover cars are invented.

no, they won't act that quickly

 

[Spymaster]

Who cares about all the complicated Brexit stuff when the government are cracking on down on Lycra louts who flout the law!

Are they addressing cycling law instead of dealing with Brexit then?

 

[not-bono-ever]

I am not convinced the government can multi task both brexit and curbing lycra loutery

 

[EastEnder]

The problems caused by some cyclists riding dangerously through crowded city streets are well known to anyone who lives in a big city, especially London. But I don't think a new law is the answer - it would useful if we could tackle bad cycling and not wait until someone gets hurt & a new law has to be invoked to deal with the aftermath. Few cyclists are likely to think to themselves "oh I'd better ride a bit more conservatively today & obey traffic lights on account of that new law" - it won't aid prevention, which is what we really need.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Was just going top post same Too many laws are pointless as there is no willingness/ability to enforce - so you can send someone down for longer does not tackle the problem of irresponsible cycle twattery any more than the farcical lack of enforcement on drivers using mobiles

 

[bemused]

Wanton and furious riding

It was a law created for horse riding. If for some reason this ancient law didn't exist or had been repealed there would have been no law to prosecute the charming chap who left two kids without their mother.

The law should always be up to date and relevant.

That law comes from the same Statue under which people are commonly charged with assaults and until recently murder. He was charged and convicted under it, so I'm trying to understand specifically what is wrong with the law. We aren't asking for the laws around GBH to be changed and that's the same Act, the age of the law is immaterial.

 

[Spymaster]

This isn't about improving cyclists behaviour, it's about addressing a gap in the law. Unless you think that there should be no adequate law regarding cyclists who kill people this is perfectly reasonable.

 

[Teaboy]

That law comes from the same Statue under which people are commonly charged with assaults and until recently murder. He was charged and convicted under it, so I'm trying to understand specifically what is wrong with the law. We aren't asking for the laws around GBH to be changed and that's the same Act, the age of the law is immaterial.

Well back in that day things like assaults and GBH actually occurred so those laws were specifically designed to deal with a concept they knew of. A law meant for riding a horse has been used for a form of transport for which it was never conceived for. Besides other laws are continually being revised and updated to be relevant in the modern world. Maybe we don't need a new law just to revise the existing one, I guess that's what the review will consider. Either way it's clearly a law which is long overdue a review.

I'm not sure a law that is designed to deal with pleasure cruisers pottering around on the Thames will be much use when we start doing intergalactic travel.

I don't really get this whole thing that because they are doing something else (or not doing) they shouldn't do this, they should be able to do it all. It smacks of whatabboutry really. I get on a bike I'm happy to obey a relevant law, dunno what the problem is. Is this like when some drivers oppose stricter road laws because of the 'there but by the grace' concept? Is that why people are bothered by this? General question btw, not aimed at you bemused

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

This isn't about improving cyclists behaviour, it's about addressing a gap in the law. Unless you think that there should be no adequate law regarding cyclists who kill people this is perfectly reasonable.

The issue seems to stem from bikes not being legally classified as vehicles, if so surely altering the definition of vehicle to include bikes would be a more sensible move?

 

[Teaboy]

The issue seems to stem from bikes not being legally classified as vehicles, if so surely altering the definition of vehicle to include bikes would be a more sensible move?

I dunno. How relevant are laws that are specifically designed to deal with motorised transport to some guy on a pushbike? I think that would cause more complication because there would be loads of aspects of road laws which are not relevant to a bike. On the other hand it would be funny though.

 

[a_chap]

I'm not going to pay attention to the usual anti-cycling trolls in here. I'll just post this:

Some thoughts on Charlie Alliston and death on the roads

 

[Teaboy]

I'm not going to pay attention to the usual anti-cycling trolls in here. I'll just post this:

Some thoughts on Charlie Alliston and death on the roads

Yes, its a decent article and largely in-line with what most people have been saying on this thread and the other one. Alliston is a dick who thoroughly deserves to do time and there are large gaps in the law which may need reforming but these areas of law are difficult and sketchy at times.

Have I missed something because with your first statement it sounded like you were about to post a rebuttal?

 

[not-bono-ever]

I'm not going to pay attention to the usual anti-cycling trolls in here. I'll just post this:

Some thoughts on Charlie Alliston and death on the roads

That's a half decent article.

 

[bemused]

'

A law meant for riding a horse has been used for a form of transport for which it was never conceived for.

The Law doesn't mention horses:

Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years

A bicycle is a vehicle and existed when this law was passed. I'm still not understanding what you specifically think is wrong with the existing law.

It seems to apply the recent case very well. By 'willful neglect' we caused 'bodily harm' whilst being 'the charge of any carriage or vehicle'

 

[DotCommunist]

lawmaking by tabloid insistence again