14 yrs - Death by Careless Cycling
Discussion
https://news.sky.com/story/new-death-by-dangerous-...
Was all over the news yesterday, and will be forgotten by tomorrow. Careless is a very subjective term in the world of motoring and is defined by a standard of driving that falls below that of a careful and competent motorist. Applying the same logic to cyclists will be fraught with issues, cycling does not require any form of licence or test of competence, and so if this "bill" does pass through I can see a real exposure to risk for cyclists that for whatever reason find themselves in this predicament.
So ironic when you also consider the complete lack of competence now evident across UK roads. I have been doing roughly 5k miles a year since 2012 and have experienced first hand (and continue to do so) the continual decline and sharp fall in driver standards. It is now a regular occurrence on rides that I encounter either a near miss where drivers totally fail to either see me, or understand the rules of the road. Only this morning in Central London did I have my nearest miss ever, in around 55k miles of cycling with a chinese woman who turned right across me into a side road, as I was on the main road (totally clear) travelling at around 24 mph. Somehow I managed to break and skid sideways to a halt, thumping the side of her car as she completed the manoeuvre. Totally oblivious at any point to my presence, off she continued leaving me with a sore foot and pumping with adrenaline.
As a regular rider in London's parks ( and I admit that I do sometimes exceed the posted 20mph limit ) this headline is making me consider what changes I may need to make to my riding going forward.
Was all over the news yesterday, and will be forgotten by tomorrow. Careless is a very subjective term in the world of motoring and is defined by a standard of driving that falls below that of a careful and competent motorist. Applying the same logic to cyclists will be fraught with issues, cycling does not require any form of licence or test of competence, and so if this "bill" does pass through I can see a real exposure to risk for cyclists that for whatever reason find themselves in this predicament.
So ironic when you also consider the complete lack of competence now evident across UK roads. I have been doing roughly 5k miles a year since 2012 and have experienced first hand (and continue to do so) the continual decline and sharp fall in driver standards. It is now a regular occurrence on rides that I encounter either a near miss where drivers totally fail to either see me, or understand the rules of the road. Only this morning in Central London did I have my nearest miss ever, in around 55k miles of cycling with a chinese woman who turned right across me into a side road, as I was on the main road (totally clear) travelling at around 24 mph. Somehow I managed to break and skid sideways to a halt, thumping the side of her car as she completed the manoeuvre. Totally oblivious at any point to my presence, off she continued leaving me with a sore foot and pumping with adrenaline.
As a regular rider in London's parks ( and I admit that I do sometimes exceed the posted 20mph limit ) this headline is making me consider what changes I may need to make to my riding going forward.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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?
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?
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.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?
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/there-are-more-...
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.
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.
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.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?
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/there-are-more-...
Whats Rishi and the Daily Mail going to do about that?
Besides turning them into steaks obvs
Cheers
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.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.
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!
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.
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.
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.Certain areas are terrible for them.
Careless cycling off road might encompass quite a few riders.
How legally 'dangerous' is MTB riding? What level of risk taking is acceptable?
OutInTheShed said:
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?
Hadn't thought of that but now you say it - that's amazing. Yes. Huge exposure. And if you kill a dog?Careless cycling off road might encompass quite a few riders.
How legally 'dangerous' is MTB riding? What level of risk taking is acceptable?
Random_Person said:
https://news.sky.com/story/new-death-by-dangerous-...
Was all over the news yesterday, and will be forgotten by tomorrow. Careless is a very subjective term in the world of motoring and is defined by a standard of driving that falls below that of a careful and competent motorist. Applying the same logic to cyclists will be fraught with issues, cycling does not require any form of licence or test of competence, and so if this "bill" does pass through I can see a real exposure to risk for cyclists that for whatever reason find themselves in this predicament.
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. Was all over the news yesterday, and will be forgotten by tomorrow. Careless is a very subjective term in the world of motoring and is defined by a standard of driving that falls below that of a careful and competent motorist. Applying the same logic to cyclists will be fraught with issues, cycling does not require any form of licence or test of competence, and so if this "bill" does pass through I can see a real exposure to risk for cyclists that for whatever reason find themselves in this predicament.
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.
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.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff