Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
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.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?
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.