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.A little bit of context available here;
https://twitter.com/ormondroyd/status/910244326567006211?s=21&t=rao0wCDJf67erFjV1uTefA
I can't see where it applies to cyclists. AFAIK, vehicle means motor vehicle, but I would be happy to be mistaken.
What's the definition of 'vehicle''?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)
What's the definition of 'vehicle''?
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'What's the definition of 'vehicle''?
I can't see where it applies to cyclists. AFAIK, vehicle means motor vehicle, but I would be happy to be mistaken.
OK, but no mention of speed limits applying, unless I missed it.Pse see my links at post 135.https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/thr...ity-with-motorists.270701/page-7#post-4760636
OK, but no mention of speed limits applying, unless I missed it.
Oh, well done, I’m so happy for you.And there you have it.
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?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.
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.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.
Indeed they do. And they treat motorcyclists worse than car drivers, IME. But still no reason to not change the lawn.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.
Astro turf has a lot to answer for.But still no reason to not change the lawn.
The existing law of furious cycling still exists & seems to broadly equivalent?
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.I do think this new law is more about politics, playing to the DM base & the false sense of outrage.