Cyclists to be awarded equality with motorists.

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Sorry, do you mean:

If I had been hit and injured by that cyclist yesterday while I was crossing on a green man, what action do you think appropriate for the cyclist? Assuming he is also sufficiently damaged to not scarper, there is a witness and a cop to hand quickly enough, that is. Please no whataboutism. Just tell me what should happen to the cyclist.

If so, I'm not a legal expert, but something like a Charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?

Well, assault has some defined parameters in law, so first you'd have to prove those were in-play to the satisfaction of the criminal legal standard (so that you are 'sure' - what used to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'). If you can't do that, and it's likely to require some evidence of the state of mind of the cyclist, then your prosecution is dead in the water. The same, with bells on, goes for manslaughter. Those who airily say 'just prosecute the very occasional bad cyclist for manslaughter' have absolutely no idea how difficult that would be in practice and how reluctant a court would be to convict. So the law in the OP is trying to level the playing field. If you ride like a twat and kill somebody, that somebody is just as dead as if you drove like a twat and killed them. So similar penalties should be available, on a very basic principle of justice for the family of the victim.

And, for the purveyors of statistics on here, let's keep in mind that of the 2000 deaths on the road, not all are caused by cars, and very far from all are caused by bad driving. Take out the suicides, the pedestrians stepping out with no warning, the cyclists getting mangled under the wheels of a lorry turning left, and all the other things not the driver's fault, and you're going to be a long way down from 2000. You could say that 100% of the deaths caused by cyclists in the last 5 years have been down to twattish riding. You can 'prove' anything with stats.

 

[flatpopely]

So, you'd have to change jobs if you couldn't drive. Doesn't make it essential. If the planet is not going to catch fire, we are all going to have to stop moving about so much, anyway.

Seriously, I'm sure you'd show a bit more resourcefulness than you seem to imply here were you to lose your licence permanently.

Your lack of empathy is astounding. Looks like you are the one with the privilege, not needing a car. My household would not function without the use of cars, bully for you yours won't.

 

[foxwelljsly]

Your lack of empathy is astounding. Looks like you are the one with the privilege, not needing a car. My household would not function without the use of cars, bully for you yours won't.

I think your household would. I think you just really like cars. I live in the middle of bloody nowhere. If neither of us could drive, we'd move. Jesus.

I work with at least two people who have to travel to remote locations all over the UK all the time and they get by perfectly well without driving a car.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Just so we're clear, a car and a driving license is a privilege not a right. That much isn't controversial. And I think the loss of that privilege for an extended period is fair for somebody who did a heinous act while driving. Does the same apply to cyclists, or are you going to argue that the ability to ride a bicycle in public, on public routes, is a right not a privilege, and the state should not be allowed to take that away, even if the rider commits a heinous act while riding? Only it feels like this is where you might end up with this line of argument.

Only it feels to me like any difference between a car and a bicycle is one of degree, not anything more fundamental.

 

[Woodface]

Mm, the idea of being able to manage without a car is a privilege? It’s an odd concept in many ways.

I used to think I couldn’t do my job without a car but now I’m not so sure. Teams is a great resource, especially for companies with multiple offices; I certainly drive far less that I used to despite having more responsibility.

 

[foxwelljsly]

Well, assault has some defined parameters in law, so first you'd have to prove those were in-play to the satisfaction of the criminal legal standard (so that you are 'sure' - what used to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'). If you can't do that, and it's likely to require some evidence of the state of mind of the cyclist, then your prosecution is dead in the water. The same, with bells on, goes for manslaughter. Those who airily say 'just prosecute the very occasional bad cyclist for manslaughter' have absolutely no idea how difficult that would be in practice and how reluctant a court would be to convict. So the law in the OP is trying to level the playing field. If you ride like a twat and kill somebody, that somebody is just as dead as if you drove like a twat and killed them. So similar penalties should be available, on a very basic principle of justice for the family of the victim.

And, for the purveyors of statistics on here, let's keep in mind that of the 2000 deaths on the road, not all are caused by cars, and very far from all are caused by bad driving. Take out the suicides, the pedestrians stepping out with no warning, the cyclists getting mangled under the wheels of a lorry turning left, and all the other things not the driver's fault, and you're going to be a long way down from 2000. You could say that 100% of the deaths caused by cyclists in the last 5 years have been down to twattish riding. You can 'prove' anything with stats.

So the multiple deaths every year of pedestrians stepping out without warning and getting run over by cars are statistically insignificant, but the one or two instances of this happening with cyclists in living memory aren't?

But, yeah, you have persuaded me that the principal is sound, but I'm still fuming at the attention that one death got over the hundreds that are run over by cars every year.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

So the multiple deaths every year of pedestrians stepping out without warning and getting run over by cars are statistically insignificant, but the one or two instances of this happening with cyclists in living memory aren't?

But, yeah, you have persuaded me that the principal is sound, but I'm still fuming at the attention that one death got over the hundreds that are run over by cars every year.

The first sentence is a mischaracterisation of what I thought I'd said. And I'm not sure if the second was meant to be ironic, so I'll not reply.

 

[Brian]

That someone stepping purposely in front of someone who rode through a red light is an equally twattish bit of behaviour.

Contemplating doing so isn't much better.

Just LMAAO.

 

[flatpopely]

So the multiple deaths every year of pedestrians stepping out without warning and getting run over by cars are statistically insignificant, but the one or two instances of this happening with cyclists in living memory aren't?

But, yeah, you have persuaded me that the principal is sound, but I'm still fuming at the attention that one death got over the hundreds that are run over by cars every year.

You're anti car, it's as simple as that. I'm not anti bike and EVO mag 'The thrill of driving' slogan is one of lifes pleasures for me.

 

[Brian]

Sorry, do you mean:

If I had been hit and injured by that cyclist yesterday while I was crossing on a green man, what action do you think appropriate for the cyclist? Assuming he is also sufficiently damaged to not scarper, there is a witness and a cop to hand quickly enough, that is. Please no whataboutism. Just tell me what should happen to the cyclist.

If so, I'm not a legal expert, but something like a Charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?

What else could I mean?

 

[Brian]

So, you'd have to change jobs if you couldn't drive. Doesn't make it essential. If the planet is not going to catch fire, we are all going to have to stop moving about so much, anyway.

Seriously, I'm sure you'd show a bit more resourcefulness than you seem to imply here were you to lose your licence permanently.

What an utterly stupid angle to take, utterly stupid. All people are talking about is the same punishment for cyclists and car drivers when either kill people by dangerous driving or cycling.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

What an utterly stupid angle to take, utterly stupid. All people are talking about is the same punishment for cyclists and car drivers when either kill people by dangerous driving or cycling.

To be fair Brian, that's not all we've been talking about (it is, however, the subject of the OP). But what we've been talking about does seem to show that a vociferous minority do consider cycles and cyclists to be a special case that shouldn't be subject to a principle of equality before the law.

 

[foxwelljsly]

You're anti car, it's as simple as that. I'm not anti bike and EVO mag 'The thrill of driving' slogan is one of lifes pleasures for me.

We have more in common than you may think. I do think the world would better if we didn't have to rely on cars to get from a to b or spend as much time as we do in them. But I like mine. It's got a great stereo, is fast and comfortable and even with the recent massive increases in the cost of diesel, it's still a cheaper way to get to the lake district or work than by the train. But I don't think it should be.

Driving as an indulgence/hobby I have no problem with, as long as it's done safely, it accounts for few externalities or road miles. It also helps preserve our engineering heritage.

 

[foxwelljsly]

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.

For info, there were 576 successful prosecutions for causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving in the period referred to above. And, again, zero fatalities in which a cyclist was the cause.

 

[awkwardbydesign]

Mm, IAM & Autocar?

Have a look at their backgrounds, not just the link.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Nobody is arguing that motor vehicles aren't dangerous, nor even that they are not more dangerous in the wrong hands than bikes. All that is being argued is that bikes can kill and maim people too, and if cyclists think they can ride with impunity the instances where it happens will only increase. Couple that with government moves to get people out of cars and onto bikes and you can see why they would want to get a grip of this before it becomes a problem. 90% of the negativity on this thread is either anti-car or pro-entitlement for cyclists.

 

[foxwelljsly]

Nobody is arguing that motor vehicles aren't dangerous, nor even that they are not more dangerous in the wrong hands than bikes. All that is being argued is that bikes can kill and maim people too, and if cyclists think they can ride with impunity the instances where it happens will only increase. Couple that with government moves to get people out of cars and onto bikes and you can see why they would want to get a grip of this before it becomes a problem. 90% of the negativity on this thread is either anti-car or pro-entitlement for cyclists.

I don't disagree that cyclists shouldn't be held to the same standards as drivers. But negligent drivers kill hundreds of people a year. Negligent cyclists kill maybe two people every 10 years. If you think the best way that DFT legal advisers branch can be used to reduce harm is to tie them up drafting legislation to address this miniscule risk, that is where we differ.

 

[Woodface]

Have a look at their backgrounds, not just the link.

Obviously I know that, they were responding to articles from IAM & Autocar which were suspect. The actual data & the coverage was published prior to the subsequent commentary.

It is an illustration of how the stats are used in a very misleading way & thus feeding the anti cycling rhetoric so prevalent on here.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

If you think the best way that DFT legal advisers branch can be used to reduce harm is to tie them up drafting legislation to address this miniscule risk, that is where we differ.

It'll be one clause in a wider piece of legislation, it's hardly going to bring the department to a halt! But actually, it's not just about the harm, it's the principle. Why do cyclists run red lights so much? Because they can. And because even if they get stopped, there's no penalty. So you have to legislate for human nature.

That and the principle of justice for the dead person and their family. It doesn't really matter if it's one every five years or one every five minutes, they still deserve justice.

 

[foxwelljsly]

It'll be one clause in a wider piece of legislation, it's hardly going to bring the department to a halt! But actually, it's not just about the harm, it's the principle. Why do cyclists run red lights so much? Because they can. And because even if they get stopped, there's no penalty. So you have to legislate for human nature.

That and the principle of justice for the dead person and their family. It doesn't really matter if it's one every five years or one every five minutes, they still deserve justice.

You'd be surprised. TBH, it'll probably never happen. The purpose of that announcement was at least partly to stir exactly the kind of division which this thread has been witness to.