Cyclists to be awarded equality with motorists.
- Thread starter Rob998
- Start date
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
While I agree that those events look dreadful, and the punishments look grossly inadequate, we don't know the context so we just don't know what the court took into account when it made its ruling. That twitter thread is provided 'for context' but there's a clearly implied subtext using the argument that 'well, car drivers don't get punished enough, so why should you extend the rules to cyclists?' and IMHO that doesn't wash.
Oh, and cyclists are required to comply with all road signs, so are subject to speed limits:
Road Traffic Act 1988 (legislation.gov.uk)
SteveG
pfm Member
As a cyclist and a motorist I've no issue with there being clearer laws to use to prosecute cyclist who kill other road/pavement users. While manslaughter can be applied now I think it's been the case in the past that juries don't want to find that guilty when used in road cases (which I think is why we have causing death by dangerous driving, as it's roughly equivalent to manslaughter).
Of course it's the case that more road users are killed by cars etc., but I still don't see that as being a good argument about why not to have a relevant law for us cyclists as well.
Talk about registration/licensing schemes and number plates for cyclists are nonsense of course and typically the sort of think you hear from typically ultra right wing/intolerant London cabbies or other Tory/UKIP/BNP voters.
Of course it's the case that more road users are killed by cars etc., but I still don't see that as being a good argument about why not to have a relevant law for us cyclists as well.
Talk about registration/licensing schemes and number plates for cyclists are nonsense of course and typically the sort of think you hear from typically ultra right wing/intolerant London cabbies or other Tory/UKIP/BNP voters.
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
I can't see where it applies to cyclists. AFAIK, vehicle means motor vehicle, but I would be happy to be mistaken.
kensalriser
pfm Member
What's the definition of 'vehicle''?
SteveG
pfm Member
I seem to recall that in some respects a bicycle can be regarded as an "aid to pedestrianism" but that might have been for access regulations in Scotland rather than UK motoring.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
There's no defined term 'vehicle' in the act, but there's 'motor vehicle' which does imply that you can have another form of vehicle which isn't motorised. Also, look at the wording in the section - it refers to 'driving or propelling a vehicle'
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
Pse see my links at post 135.https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/thr...ity-with-motorists.270701/page-7#post-4760636
foxwelljsly
Me too, I ate one sour too.
So, a massive thread going on about the microscopically small number of road users killed by cyclists and loads of threads extolling the virtues of vehicles designed to be dangerous to other road users by going ridiculously fast and pouring opprobrium on mechanisms designed to stop this happening.
The moment when all motorised personal transport is autonomous can't come too soon and will be a great milestone for civilisation.
The moment when all motorised personal transport is autonomous can't come too soon and will be a great milestone for civilisation.
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
OK, but no mention of speed limits applying, unless I missed it.
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
It doesn't specifically, but it does refer to dangerous cycling under which excessive speed would be considered. Hence my comment about subjectivity.
Oh, well done, I’m so happy for you.
Unlike your good self I will admit when I am wrong or ill informed. I also posted about the level of discretion afforded to the police when it comes to pavement cycling; it’s probably a bit less lenient than pavement parking but there you go.
The existing law of furious cycling still exists & seems to broadly equivalent? They can pass all the laws they like but it won’t really solve anything because the problem doesn’t really exist given how few are killed by cycle?
I do find it odd that there is far less outrage about all the people killed by car & the paltry sentences handed out; is there not an appetite for this to be looked at first?
I do think this new law is more about politics, playing to the DM base & the false sense of outrage.
Given that most jurors drive, as do most magistrates I do wonder if there is some tacit bias when it comes to verdicts & sentencing? I do believe cyclists could get treated more harshly & will certainly have more media coverage.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
My reading is that as 'vehicle' isn't defined but 'motor vehicle' is, then you can have unmotorised vehicles, eg cycles, horse-drawn carts, etc. And the section of the law I linked to also describes 'driving or propelling' a vehicle, which is consistent with that interpretation. And all road users, whether driving or propelling a vehicle, are required to obey traffic signs. So cyclists are, under that reading, required to obey the speed limit (and stop signs, red traffic lights, one-way signs, no-entry signs, etc, etc).
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
The law on 'furious cycling' is clearly inadequate because cyclists don't get prosecuted for it when they hurt or kill somebody. And I imagine the problem is the level of subjectivity around the term 'furious' cycling. It probably requires more than mere speed, but some degree of intent and recklessness, and in any case how do you establish the speed, and whether the speed is, in the context, excessive. So it seems to me that a firmer expression of liability and responsibility on the part of the cyclist is no bad thing. And frankly, I'm a little wary of any cyclist who objects to an attempt to hold them more accountable for the consequences of their behaviour. The stuff about car drivers is just whataboutism. I don't think any car drivers here would argue anything other than that the examples in that twitter thread appear to have been dealt with too leniently.
As to your belief that cyclists could get treated more harshly - more harshly than what? More harshly than now? More harshly than motorists convicted of a similar offence? If they've killed or maimed a person through 'furious cycling' should they not be treated harshly anyway?
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
Indeed they do. And they treat motorcyclists worse than car drivers, IME. But still no reason to not change the lawn.
klfrs
chill out
Astro turf has a lot to answer for.
SteveG
pfm Member
I think it's only a max sentence of 2 years, whereas the max for causing death by dangerous driving is something like 14 years.
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
So you would be in favour if Keir Starmer proposed it? Just because a Tory proposes it doesn't make it wrong. Or right, it's irrelevant.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Upthread, it was suggested that this law might deter people from becoming cyclists, which would be counterproductive. I have two thoughts on that POV:
Firstly, it may be that the law has been introduced because of the growing number of cyclists, and if government is committed to reducing car usage and increasing cycling, then the sort of incidents this law is designed to address will only increase.
Secondly, not having impunity for bad and dangerous behaviour shouldn't be a 'deterrent', people should simply be aware of and obey the code of behaviour you follow when doing the activity. Like motorists are expected to do. Anybody who will be 'deterred' from cycling because they might be held responsible for bad cycling, well actually, I'd quite like their sort to be deterred.
Firstly, it may be that the law has been introduced because of the growing number of cyclists, and if government is committed to reducing car usage and increasing cycling, then the sort of incidents this law is designed to address will only increase.
Secondly, not having impunity for bad and dangerous behaviour shouldn't be a 'deterrent', people should simply be aware of and obey the code of behaviour you follow when doing the activity. Like motorists are expected to do. Anybody who will be 'deterred' from cycling because they might be held responsible for bad cycling, well actually, I'd quite like their sort to be deterred.