Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Proposal for new law to tackle dangerous cyclists.

can't lose really, most of the anti-cycling purple headed wariors are reactionary tory voters so for very little effort this non-issue can be addressed to the satisfaction of the parties base while the review into sentencing for cars causing death waits in the long grass.
 
Spymaster said:
Nah. If there's one thing that unites people of all stripes, it's a dislike of shit cyclists. They're right up there with estate agents and coppers. Rightly so too.
Click to expand...
And that's the important bit - shit cyclists. I don't know why so many cyclists get a bee in their bonnet when these issues come up - there's no problem with good cyclists, it's the dangerous ones that are the problem. In much the same way as it's the dangerous car/bus/lorry drivers who are also the problem.
 
Spymaster said:
Nah. If there's one thing that unites people of all stripes, it's a dislike of shit cyclists. They're right up there with estate agents and coppers. Rightly so too.
Click to expand...
nonsense, its a hobby horse for fordist individualists and nietzchians- you know a cause by the company it keeps and this one is deffo justice-for-jeremy stuff
 
When commuting I seem to give abuse at cyclists more than I do with motorists these days- motorists always give you some kind of reaction, the cyclists however just look back and fuck off through the next set of lights.

sad times
 
bemused said:
'

The Law doesn't mention horses:



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'
Click to expand...

Did you read the article?

Of course it applied to an extent to this case otherwise he wouldn't have been convicted but that doesn't mean to say it is an ideal law for the situation. I find your resistance a bit bizarre really. Are you coming at this from an anarchist perspective? I lose track of who is who on here.

I'm not sure a new law is required but I do believe the current one needs reforming if only to update it. Do you think no laws should be updated? Whilst it may not mention its clearly meant for horse and carriage, what else would pull the carriage? Pretty much everyone involved in the case has said it could do with reforming. Is the most important thing to do right now? No, of course not but that doesn't mean to say it shouldn't be reformed. Relevant laws for our time.

ETA: I would like to see a charge of 'Causing death by dangerous cycling', its really as simple as that. Rather than just dusting of some old manuscript and shoe horning the situation to fit the existing law.
 
Last edited:
1732 persons died in road traffic accidents in the UK in 2015.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._data/file/533293/rrcgb-main-results-2015.pdf
755 were motor vehicle occupants excluding motor cycles.
409 were pedestrians
365 were motor cyclists.
100 were pedal cyclists.
103 classified as other.
In terms of cause it is usually given as 1-2 per year are pedestrians killed by cyclists.
I am not sure there is a statistical category for HGV drivers killed when bumping over the body of cyclists they have just squished. I suspect should one exist it would be generally 0 per annum.

One would suggest that the gain of perhaps two cases per decade for this new offence would be insufficient to justify time in a parliament squeezed by an on rushing constitutional crisis.

Then one would have to conclude that neither road safety nor a desire to fill free parliamentary time by correcting minor kinks in English and Welsh road traffic law were the primary drivers here.

One can also safely assume that such a law will have zero impact on daily cycling attitudes so this can also be dismissed as a motivation with derision.
 
EastEnder said:
And that's the important bit - shit cyclists. I don't know why so many cyclists get a bee in their bonnet when these issues come up - there's no problem with good cyclists, it's the dangerous ones that are the problem. In much the same way as it's the dangerous car/bus/lorry drivers who are also the problem.
Click to expand...
Because cars are responsible for a lot more fatalities and nothing is done to curb their behaviour. All you hear about is cycling.

Driver killed OAP cyclist then pretended to be innocent bystander
 
ferrelhadley said:
1732 persons died in road traffic accidents in the UK in 2015.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._data/file/533293/rrcgb-main-results-2015.pdf
755 were motor vehicle occupants excluding motor cycles.
409 were pedestrians
365 were motor cyclists.
100 were pedal cyclists.
103 classified as other.
In terms of cause it is usually given as 1-2 per year are pedestrians killed by cyclists.
I am not sure there is a statistical category for HGV drivers killed when bumping over the body of cyclists they have just squished. I suspect should one exist it would be generally 0 per annum.

One would suggest that the gain of perhaps two cases per decade for this new offence would be insufficient to justify time in a parliament squeezed by an on rushing constitutional crisis.

Then one would have to conclude that neither road safety nor a desire to fill free parliamentary time by correcting minor kinks in English and Welsh road traffic law were the primary drivers here.

One can also safely assume that such a law will have zero impact on daily cycling attitudes so this can also be dismissed as a motivation with derision.
Click to expand...

The thing that surprises me about that is the 100 pedal cyclists, that number seems surprisingly low.
 
sleaterkinney said:
Because cars are responsible for a lot more fatalities and nothing is done to curb their behaviour. All you hear about is cycling.

Driver killed OAP cyclist then pretended to be innocent bystander
Click to expand...
I understand the situation, I would like to see the law deal with car drivers appropriately - you will get no arguments from me on that one.

But I don't understand the righteous indignation of some cyclists, a kind of "how dare they" response to any criticism. You are a cyclist, no doubt a responsible one, are you telling me you never see other cyclists behaving dangerously on the road? Does the fact that car drivers are often not dealt with harshly enough mean that the issue of irresponsible bike riders should be ignored?
 
ferrelhadley said:
1732 persons died in road traffic accidents in the UK in 2015.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._data/file/533293/rrcgb-main-results-2015.pdf
755 were motor vehicle occupants excluding motor cycles.
409 were pedestrians
365 were motor cyclists.
100 were pedal cyclists.
103 classified as other.
In terms of cause it is usually given as 1-2 per year are pedestrians killed by cyclists.
I am not sure there is a statistical category for HGV drivers killed when bumping over the body of cyclists they have just squished. I suspect should one exist it would be generally 0 per annum.

One would suggest that the gain of perhaps two cases per decade for this new offence would be insufficient to justify time in a parliament squeezed by an on rushing constitutional crisis.

Then one would have to conclude that neither road safety nor a desire to fill free parliamentary time by correcting minor kinks in English and Welsh road traffic law were the primary drivers here.

One can also safely assume that such a law will have zero impact on daily cycling attitudes so this can also be dismissed as a motivation with derision.
Click to expand...
you are prince charles and i claim my £5
 
EastEnder said:
I understand the situation, I would like to see the law deal with car drivers appropriately - you will get no arguments from me on that one.

But I don't understand the righteous indignation of some cyclists, a kind of "how dare they" response to any criticism. You are a cyclist, no doubt a responsible one, are you telling me you never see other cyclists behaving dangerously on the road? Does the fact that car drivers are often not dealt with harshly enough mean that the issue of irresponsible bike riders should be ignored?
Click to expand...

Most cyclists, like most drivers, view road based twattery as a bad thing - buit we done this in the other thread
 
Last edited:
EastEnder said:
I understand the situation, I would like to see the law deal with car drivers appropriately - you will get no arguments from me on that one.

But I don't understand the righteous indignation of some cyclists, a kind of "how dare they" response to any criticism. You are a cyclist, no doubt a responsible one, are you telling me you never see other cyclists behaving dangerously on the road? Does the fact that car drivers are often not dealt with harshly enough mean that the issue of irresponsible bike riders should be ignored?
Click to expand...

No, but I don't read it as a "how dare they" response. Fact is that there's limited amount of time in parliament to examine and change laws, and that DfT who would be reviewing and proposing changes to cycling laws are the same people that could be spending that time reviewing and changing laws related to driving, and drivers kill far, far, far more people each year than cyclists. Surely any review should be focused on the places that will have the most effect on road deaths, which is driving. How come do we not get reviews of laws around pavement driving/parking when a 4 year old, scooting on the pavement gets killed by a driver driving onto the pavement to park, and is found not guilty? How is there a gap in the law that must be immediately addressed after a cyclist gets convicted but not a murmer when a driver gets off.

So many people are killed by drivers without this kind of reaction. When Sam Harding was killed by a driver opening their car door (which had illegally tinted windows) there were no calls for change to the law then that meant that the driver was only charged with manslaughter (which he was found not guilty). The only other charge (opening your door into danger) is a simple fine.
Now that's a real gap in the law, that didn't exist for Alliston, Alliston got a double charge. In this case Alliston has got sent down for 18 months. Not long enough imo but looking at other deaths on the roads its not a short sentence. Idk what the maximum is for the wanton and furious driving charge though as that might warrant changing or a new charge being brought in.

It's a case of being annoyed by the double standards that are being applied, the screams from sections for the desperate need for more regulation to stop KILLER CYCLISTS!!!! and the way that cyclists are grouped together and given collective responsibility that does not happen for drivers. Those people who are screaming for cycling regulation have fuck all to say about drivers killing pedestrians most of the time, even on here, did anyone post up about the london pedestrian killed by a drug-driving HGV driver this week? No, but someone found the time and need to post about the pedestrian killed following a collision with a cyclist the week before. Couldn't give a fuck when it's a driver high on drugs doing the killing, but when a cyclist with no evidence of fault on the cyclist part is involved in a fatal collision it must be commented on. No doubt there will be much support for changes in the law for cyclists and silence when it comes to the much bigger problem of drivers.
 
Last edited:
Teaboy said:
Did you read the article?

Of course it applied to an extent to this case otherwise he wouldn't have been convicted but that doesn't mean to say it is an ideal law for the situation. I find your resistance a bit bizarre really. Are you coming at this from an anarchist perspective? I lose track of who is who on here.

I'm not sure a new law is required but I do believe the current one needs reforming if only to update it. Do you think no laws should be updated? Whilst it may not mention its clearly meant for horse and carriage, what else would pull the carriage? Pretty much everyone involved in the case has said it could do with reforming. Is the most important thing to do right now? No, of course not but that doesn't mean to say it shouldn't be reformed. Relevant laws for our time.

ETA: I would like to see a charge of 'Causing death by dangerous cycling', its really as simple as that. Rather than just dusting of some old manuscript and shoe horning the situation to fit the existing law.
Click to expand...

I'm coming at it from the perspective the law already accounts for people who cause harm to other whilst using a vehicle.

Taking a Bill through Parliment is expensive, time-consuming and utilises finite resources which could be used for much more urgent problems.

Laws should be updated if either: a) they don't address a problem within the existing law or b) the punishment with the Act need to be raised.

Not because people (the press) aren't happy with the phrase 'wanton and furious' or there isn't the word 'cycling' in it. The fact you can't point to a specific reason why the existing law isn't able to properly address this other than not liking the language proves that it is adequate.
 
bemused said:
I'm coming at it from the perspective the law already accounts for people who cause harm to other whilst using a vehicle.

Taking a Bill through Parliment is expensive, time-consuming and utilises finite resources which could be used for much more urgent problems.

Laws should be updated if either: a) they don't address a problem within the existing law or b) the punishment with the Act need to be raised.

Not because people (the press) aren't happy with the phrase 'wanton and furious' or there isn't the word 'cycling' in it. The fact you can't point to a specific reason why the existing law isn't able to properly address this other than not liking the language proves that it is adequate.
Click to expand...

Cheers. I'll come to this is a bit when I have more time. I enjoyed the last line though, some bloke on the internet said or didn't say this therefore this proves something. :D We should hold trials this way, it would save money.
 
Last edited:
EastEnder said:
And that's the important bit - shit cyclists. I don't know why so many cyclists get a bee in their bonnet when these issues come up - there's no problem with good cyclists, it's the dangerous ones that are the problem. In much the same way as it's the dangerous car/bus/lorry drivers who are also the problem.
Click to expand...

If this law is only concerned with introducing a death by dangerous cycling then I will be unconcerned for the reasons you say.

Watch this space though. Wouldn't surprise me if they snuck in various other tabloid fodder which has the effect of reducing the number of people cycling.
 
Winot said:
Watch this space though. Wouldn't surprise me if they snuck in various other tabloid fodder which has the effect of reducing the number of people cycling.
Click to expand...

All the stuff most people moaning about, running red lights, is already covered in law. That isn't the problem, the ability to enforce it is.
 
bemused said:
All the stuff most people moaning about, running red lights, is already covered in law. That isn't the problem, the ability to enforce it is.
Click to expand...

Yeah the real answer to sorting out bad driving/cycling is proper enforcement. And there's plenty they could do but legislators love to legislate and 'something must be done'.

What I meant though was that they might try and throw in mandatory helmets/licensing/insurance just to please the Daily Mail.
 
EastEnder said:
I understand the situation, I would like to see the law deal with car drivers appropriately - you will get no arguments from me on that one.

But I don't understand the righteous indignation of some cyclists, a kind of "how dare they" response to any criticism. You are a cyclist, no doubt a responsible one, are you telling me you never see other cyclists behaving dangerously on the road? Does the fact that car drivers are often not dealt with harshly enough mean that the issue of irresponsible bike riders should be ignored?
Click to expand...
The two are linked and that's where the indignation come from. We see motorists driving dangerously and the cops do nothing, if they do then the courts do nothing and the press ignores it - you even get some of the press and some on this forum celebrating it.
 
sleaterkinney said:
The two are linked and that's where the indignation come from. We see motorists driving dangerously and the cops do nothing, if they do then the courts do nothing and the press ignores it - you even get some of the press and some on this forum celebrating it.
Click to expand...

Yep, although West Mids Police are great and the Close Pass Operation has cut cyclist KSIs by 20% (although they are also saying they need to see if this is a long term trend or a statistical anomoly) Undercover operation to catch drivers too close to cyclists praised

This is what they say about enforcing cyclist behaviour:

Cyclists don’t cause us, as an organisation, problems, that’s because they aren’t causing our communities problems, they aren’t killing nearly 100 people on our regions roads as mechanically propelled vehicles currently do. Yes we do get complaints of the “nuisance” variety, pavement cycling, some anti-social behaviour (usually yobs on bikes rather than “cyclists”), red light running etc. but you get the idea, most peoples interpretation of “1st world problems” or the “modern day blues”, nothing that’s a priority for a force like our own in a modern day society. Bad cycling is an “irritant” to the wider community rather than a danger, and maybe an improvement in infrastructure and policing may alieve many of the reasons that cause a very small minority of cyclists to be an “irritant”
Click to expand...

Safer Cycling | WMP Traffic

So new legistlation won't be enforced (although if the new legislation is only concerned with death following a collision it will be enforced as it is now, ie: reactive only, not proactive).
 
BigTom said:
No, but I don't read it as a "how dare they" response. Fact is that there's limited amount of time in parliament to examine and change laws, and that DfT who would be reviewing and proposing changes to cycling laws are the same people that could be spending that time reviewing and changing laws related to driving, and drivers kill far, far, far more people each year than cyclists. Surely any review should be focused on the places that will have the most effect on road deaths, which is driving. How come do we not get reviews of laws around pavement driving/parking when a 4 year old, scooting on the pavement gets killed by a driver driving onto the pavement to park, and is found not guilty? How is there a gap in the law that must be immediately addressed after a cyclist gets convicted but not a murmer when a driver gets off.
Click to expand...
Like many cyclists on here, you seem to be complaining that cyclists shouldn't be subject to the same sort of rules that all other road users are subject to.
There are already systems in place to deal with shit driving. They don't need addressing, as they work quite well.
Conversely, cyclists can and do ride away from the scene of accidents with a resounding 'fuck you'' attitude, and their victims have as good as zero recourse.
 
Teaboy said:
Have I missed something because with your first statement it sounded like you were about to post a rebuttal?
Click to expand...

I don't believe you have missed anything. I said that I'm not going to pay attention to the usual anti-cycling trolls in here and I am in fact not paying attention to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Maggot
Apps for cyclists
Replies
6
Views
463
Winot
Winot
TopCat
Ceramic coatings for new cycle
Replies
3
Views
328
TopCat
TopCat
danny la rouge
Drivers who are new to automatics
2 3 4
Replies
116
Views
4K
Puddy_Tat
Puddy_Tat
editor
Europe's $8BN project to build huge new high-speed rail line across three former Soviet states
Replies
2
Views
163
ska invita
ska invita
hash tag
Waterloo Station - proposed redevelopement
Replies
9
Views
362
Puddy_Tat
Puddy_Tat
Back
Top Bottom