advertisement


Cyclists to be awarded equality with motorists.

Whataboutism writ large there, though.

If you think that's whataboutery, you're either being vexatious or a moron. Which is it? I doubt it's the latter.

The OP is specifically about establishing a legal equivalence between pedal cycles and Porsche Macaus. I am pointing out that this is irrational to a level of complete stupidity.

I also think some geezer anecdotally citing almost being hit by a cyclist 5 years ago seems a pretty flimsy argument for a change in the law. I'm not saying that no-one rides in a manner that poses a risk to other road users, but that risk is insufficiently significant to merit the resource required to mitigate it through the creation and enforcement of additional statutes. The example above very directly shows why.
 
If you think that's whataboutery, you're either being vexatious or a moron. Which is it? I doubt it's the latter.

The OP is specifically about establishing a legal equivalence between pedal cycles and Porsche Macaus. I am pointing out that this is irrational to a level of complete stupidity.
It’s neither vexatious nor moronic. The OP is about cyclists being treated the same as motorists, and that not being fair. You are apparently arguing that because some drivers behave very badly, that’s no justification for punishing cyclists who behave badly. It’s a non-sequitur and textbook whataboutism: ‘never mind X, what about Y’
 
It’s neither vexatious nor moronic. The OP is about cyclists being treated the same as motorists, and that not being fair. You are apparently arguing that because some drivers behave very badly, that’s no justification for punishing cyclists who behave badly. It’s a non-sequitur and textbook whataboutism: ‘never mind X, what about Y’

I agree, but it's a compete irrelevance.

In the last 12 months, 531 people were injured by cyclists. No one died.

In the same period, 19,243 cyclists were injured by motor vehicles and 112 of those were killed and 23,805 pedestrians were injured by motor vehicles and 470 of those killed.

We are talking about an occurrence that is so rare it barely merits a statistical blip and in the one case that always pops up, the victim was significantly culpable. This is complete hot air cynically deployed to victimise a group purely to deflect from the governments failings.

Not only that, there are already laws in place that can be invoked to ensure that someone wantonly killing someone with a bicycle gets their just-desserts.
 
I agree, but it's a compete irrelevance.

In the last 12 months, 531 people were injured by cyclists. No one died.

In the same period, 19,243 cyclists were injured by motor vehicles and 112 of those were killed and 23,805 pedestrians were injured by motor vehicles and 470 of those killed.

We are talking about an occurrence that is so rare it barely merits a statistical blip and in the one case that always pops up, the victim was significantly culpable. This is complete hot air cynically deployed to victimise a group purely to deflect from the governments failings.
So just to be clear if a pedestrian is killed by a cyclist you believe the punishment should be less than that of the same offence if perpetrated by someone driving a motor vehicle. The frequency of such an event is irrelevent to the question BTW.
 
So just to be clear if a pedestrian is killed by a cyclist you believe the punishment should be less than that of the same offence if perpetrated by someone driving a motor vehicle. The frequency of such an event is irrelevent to the question BTW.


I was about to ask the same question!!
 
So just to be clear if a pedestrian is killed by a cyclist you believe the punishment should be less than that of the same offence if perpetrated by someone driving a motor vehicle. The frequency of such an event is irrelevent to the question BTW.
No, I am not. I am saying that the law is already there to ensure that they do got an equivalent punishment and that this is a cynical ploy to curry favour with core tory voters and stir up resentment towards an already victimised group.

In the index offence, the cyclist in question ran over a jaywalker and was doing under the speed limit. Do you think a driver would have got the same penalty under those circumstances?

Do you think we need a separate law for every single implement that could be used to kill someone?
 
So just to be clear if a pedestrian is killed by a cyclist you believe the punishment should be less than that of the same offence if perpetrated by someone driving a motor vehicle. The frequency of such an event is irrelevent to the question BTW.
If you don't think the frequency is relevant, then I assume you think we should legislate for all sorts of specific and unlikely or infrequent modes of death or murder? Death by battering with a round of cheddar? Or a 2'x3' bit of marine ply?
 
i dont care if it is a new law or a revised law - what i care about is that every death on our roads is tragedy - and the facility in the law to treat perpetrators equally in terms of process and sentencing needs to exist.

According to the BBC article in the first post, there exists a loophole only applied to cyclists that constrains the max sentence to 2 years. Whereas depending on the circumstances death by dangerous driving could (depending on the circumstances) result in a max of life in gaol.

This values a life taken by the cyclist at 2 years punishment, which is significantly lower than the punishment that could be given to a car driver taking a life.
 
No, I am not. I am saying that the law is already there to ensure that they do got an equivalent punishment and that this is a cynical ploy to curry favour with core tory voters and stir up resentment towards an already victimised group.

In the index offence, the cyclist in question ran over a jaywalker and was doing under the speed limit. Do you think a driver would have got the same penalty under those circumstances?

Do you think we need a separate law for every single implement that could be used to kill someone?

In the case you mention if the driver of a car had done the same e.g. not made any attempt to avoid a collision and then leave the scene I suspect they would have got a very much longer sentence. Also 'jaywalking' is not an offence in the UK, it is up to users of the road to look out for pedestrians.
 
So just to be clear if a pedestrian is killed by a cyclist you believe the punishment should be less than that of the same offence if perpetrated by someone driving a motor vehicle. The frequency of such an event is irrelevent to the question BTW.
Yes. The punishment should be less.

The severity of the punishment is meant to act as a deterrent as well as revenge.

A cyclist does not need a legal deterrent to avoid crashing into pedestrians, because the deterrent value is the cyclist's own self-preservation itself.

If I lightly clip a pedestrian's rucksack with my bars, there is a high chance that that will cause me to crash.
If I do crash, then I could get away with a light graze or I could have long term shoulder/arm fracture complications. Self-preservation.

There is no element of self-preservation for a driver protected by a car, for avoiding colliding with a pedestrian. That's why a legal deterrent in that case is required.

This is just blue meat and you shouldn't be falling for it.
 
Yes. The punishment should be less.

The severity of the punishment is meant to act as a deterrent as well as revenge.

A cyclist does not need a legal deterrent to avoid crashing into pedestrians, because the deterrent value is the cyclist's own self-preservation itself.

If I lightly clip a pedestrian's rucksack with my bars, there is a high chance that that will cause me to crash.
If I do crash, then I could get away with a light graze or I could have long term shoulder/arm fracture complications. Self-preservation.

This is just blue meat and you shouldn't be falling for it.
Wow that's a strong statement, at least you have stated your viewpoint on this.
 
If I lightly clip a pedestrian's rucksack with my bars, there is a high chance that that will cause me to crash.

and yes that is your fault, for not taking due care and attention.

In the same way as the cyclist that hit me when they zoomed through a red light - leaving me with a sprained ankle and bloody knee. She was injured as well, and her bike smashed. Regardless of whether she was injured or not, it was still her fault for running a red light.

This isnt about deterrents, this is about punishment for taking a life.
 
There seems to be a line of thought here that because cyclists are themselves at risk, the risk they present to others is lower so there’s no need for deterrence. That overlooks a basic human trait of thinking ‘it’ll never happen to me’ which lies behind a lot of accidents where inadequate precautions or unnecessary risks were taken.
 
If I lightly clip a pedestrian's rucksack with my bars, there is a high chance that that will cause me to crash.

so if you killed that pedestrian and were sent down for two years that would be fair? If a car driver clipped the same pedestrian with their wing mirrors and killed them and got 20 years for death by dangerous driving, that would be ok as well? Is that fair.......?
 
FWIW I think the penalties are way too light all round. The amount of people killed by idiot motorists is huge at around 2000 a year IIRC with vastly more than that suffering life-changing injury and the penalties far too light given the mass and kinetic energy of a car. They are hugely dangerous and environmentally destructive things and I’d ultimately like to see them phased out.

If the price for better motoring standards is cyclists receiving similar penalties for the trace-element of deaths they cause then I really don’t care, I’ll happily take that risk as I’ve never hit anyone in 50 years of cycling. I’m far more concerned given the far-right popularist nature of our government with the authoritarianism and red-tape it would necessitate. I do not want the state mandating licensing for bicycles, monitoring who owns them, where they go on them etc. We have more than enough of that shite in our lives as-is. We need perspective here, the pedestrian deaths from idiotic cycling is a couple a year tops. Motor vehicles are the killers on our roads.
 
Well I will confess to cycing through a red light.

In the evening, the lights at the nearest crossroads to home are triggered by an inductive loop. A cyclist does not trigger this loop. There is often very little traffic and there could be a lengthy wait before the lights get tripped in my direcction. I usually stop, look around and wait in the hope it might change, then give up and ride through.

What would you do?
I'd do similar, except I'd pop a one-handed wheelie and give the middle finger to any cameras, just so I can become an internet sensation. Or end up on my arse...
 


advertisement


Back
Top