How about a new offence of causing death or injury to a cyclist by dangerous driving?

If cyclists disregard the road rules they should be charged accordingly.
If that blatant disregard for road rules results in somebody's injury and/or death then throw the book at them.

They had a high profile case of someone on a fixy crashing into a person on a pedestrian crossing a few years back, and brits being brits, they are the grumpiest and crankest people going around.

The thing is most crashes involving a bike have a lower risk of harm, compared to a car. So shouldn't that have a lower penalty than a dangerous driving in a car?

With a car, you should stop at a red light when there is no traffic but if you are on a bike and there is no traffic around or just one other car, and you just take off lightly and gently , some different rules are needed. In a car you can't hear or see anything outside, but on a bike you can hear or see what is going on much better

Am I really missing the mark here? keen to know what you think

.
.
If somebody disregards the road rules on a bike then they should be prosecuted in relation to how the laws are written and not by comparison to the rules pertaining to motor vehicles.

If a cyclist hurts, maims or kills a pedestrian then they shouldn't receive a lesser penalty than a motorist who does the same thing just because they are on a bike.

Cyclists who think running red lights or stop signs is okay "just because" gives the motoring community all the more reason to hate us. I saw one idiot cyclist yesterday do exactly that right in front of me. I stopped group riding here in Oz because of the entitled behavior that the "group mentality" displays.

Don't get me started on those high powered electric scooters...Actually the plus about those things is that motorists are spending so much time bitching about kids on scooters and are leaving me alone.

For those not in UK/Not aware of the laws, the issue (as per the case referred to and the rationale for the law change) is that Causing Death by dangerous driving is an offence specified within the Road Traffic Act, but limited to 'mechanically propelled vehicles'. The latter provisions of Section 1 where they relate to cycling have dangerous cycling, careless or inconsiderate cycling, but have a lower level of punishment set then the death by driving. Arguably if you kill someone with bike or car (bus, tractor, etc) then the victim is still just as dead, and so the move here is to align responsibility between modes.

I don't have an issue with this. Although I still don't fully see why killing someone with a car when breaking several laws (drink/drug driving, on phone, speeding and no license) has lesser range of punishment than hitting someone with a hammer. Why a 2 tonne weapon gets you reduced sentence to a 2kg is debatable.

I never understood this rationale either. A car is given such leeway in society for what it really is. I understand the way the modern world works and people need to get to different places, but we're so quick to call things 'accidents' when it really is the fault of one or both parties. Holding people criminally liable for their actions behind the wheel (or on the bike) would have a chilling effect on aggressive and reckless driving. Race you car/bike in a race, not on the road.

the law is the law (noting that the law varies a bit between different countries).
however the laws around road rules are written based on the needs and issues of motor vehicles. reasonable and safe behaviour on a bike is often different. eg some aspects of cycling are more like a pedestrian than a car and you seldom see pedestrians prosecuted for crossing against the lights. i'd argue that if you're introducing a specific law to punish cyclists for breaking the rules then you should be ensuring that those rules are appropriate to hold cyclists to.

of course dangerous is dangerous and should be punished (though i'm sure most cyclists experience dangerous behavoiur towards them every ride which is almost always unpunished so we can get a bit of a feeling that if the law doesn't protect us then it can't apply to us at all)

I often agree with what you say mate, but in this case I'm more on the side of what the others are arguing for. Most road rules were made for motor vehicles, some are not adequate for bike riding. Sometimes, it is safer on your bike to not follow the road rules made for cars. Often that means not stopping at stop signs (otherwise it becomes much harder to find a window to go through), and sometimes when going left (in Australia) not stopping at a red light if safe and as a way of getting ahead of other traffic and not get bogged down in it. Much safer this way.

The big difference is (and studies were made about this) that when cyclists break the rules it is more often than not for their own safety.

But try to explain this here in Australia where there is so much cyclist-hating. Any occasion will be used to try and point the finger at cyclists, to deflect from the fact that the true danger on our roads (and paths) are not cyclists but motor vehicles.

.
After decades of trying to understand the blind and irrational hatred of cyclists in Australia I have come to the simple conclusion that it is based in ingrained societal Homophobia. Now that may sound silly but I have had,God knows how many, conversations with non-cyclists all over the country and almost every time,if you argue long enough,the term "Lycra Faggotts" rears its ugly head.

Guys wearing speedos in Australia,Faggotts......Guys wearing Spandex in the gym in Australia,Faggotts.....Guys wearing Lycra on bike in Australia,Faggotts....It never ends

I conducted an experiment after thinking one day "You never hear about a Tradie on a beater bike getting run over or abused" People just assume that Tradie lost his license and has to ride to work.so all good we will leave him alone. Lycra clad cyclists however are fair game. I decided to try it out and started wearing Tradie T-Shirts from Target instead of cycling jerseys and attached racks to my commuter bike. Guess what,in all the years since I change what I wear and how my bike looks,I have not had one single incident with a motorist. Hell,when I attach my BOB trailer then all the truckies become my besties and I have even been invited to eat in the Truckies section of Road Houses around the country. (The Police lights on my bike at night help as well)

Second and Third World countries are much more bike friendly as well (I'd happily ride anywhere in SE Asia over Australia) but that is a different discussion.

Replying with respect and with intent to further the discussion.

What you describe is the rationale and justification to minimise the individual's risk as a cyclist. Which seems reasonable. But what it fails to do is recognise why that red light is there. In case of left turn, then it's to provide protection to pedestrians, and so a visually impaired, or frail pedestrian, short child, etc being hit by that cyclist doesn't have an improved outcome.

Equally, as someone that used to commute in central london in 90s, Manchester in 2000s and urban NZ in the 2010s to now, I had a fair few situations caused by cyclists coming through lights when I was doing the legal maneuver. Several times that for example was the cyclist doing that left turn into the road that I was going ahead into and they just turned (often with headphones in) leaving me going into the back of them or needing to move out to overtake and potentially then having a following car go into back of me.

I did get wound up by the cyclists going 10mph slower than me but through every red light, but that's 'on me'.

The funniest cycling rage incident that happened to me was a car real close to me and shouting out “dildo” at full yell while brandishing a large black and floppy dildo out the passenger window

Going OT, but my favourite was the 2 chavvy neds (cap wearing, tracksuited manchester youths) in a crappy 3 door hatch with 2 young girls in the back. I saw them on a side street and just got that 'feeling'. Sure enough 2 mins later car catches me and the one in passenger seat is trying to impress the girls by mooning me out the window. Impressive flexibility in an old Nova. However, by sheer luck I was just having a swig from my waterbottle and my instant reaction to beeping horn, jeering yoof and spotty arse was to defend myself with a squirt of water at typical manchester winter air temperature. With 'you couldn't write it' accuracy, the jet hit centre bullseye, which resulted in a cessation of jeering from the moony, as he flinched away which resulted in his head then being in lap of driver. At which point they were stuck in traffic jam and I just cycled home. #karmabites possibly literally.

Oh I have several commuter cycling stories, some good, some less so. Projectiles from air pellets, eggs to spit, side swipes from buses, pedestrians, cyclists, mopeds and multiple police cars. A photo of a waterbottle slushie from a 13mile commute at -16degrees C in 2010.

Back closer to on topic. I went back to London a couple of years ago. Amazing amount of cycle lanes there now. But it does mean the intersections/junctions are really complicted as those cycle lanes include contraflow cycle lanes, central two way, on road cycle lanes. And so when I was stood looking to cross the road as a ped you really did need to trust the lights as it was impossible to work out what direction traffic and specifically cycles would be approaching from. So there was a real risk if I crossed wihtout the green man when I could see no cars around then I was missing a 'legal' cyclist that was about to hit me. Still now this was a uniquely London thing for me, never had that in the US, AU or NZ or previously in UK.

I also remember a fatality in 1990s from a roller blader on a ped in Hyde park. Similar discussions regarding the safety and speed of roller bladers.

Had a good wicked ol' chuckle out loud at that one - thank you.

The immediate background to this (thread topic) the reasonable decision not to prosecute a cyclist who was wheel 3 in a 4 man chain gang round Regent's Park's perimeter road, London. The coroner's court heard that the victim, a lady walking her dog, according to third party witness statement, stepped into the road seemingly oblivious to approaching road users (good visibility both ways). The first and second riders missed her but tragically the third didn't, riding likely in excess of 25mph, and the lady died 50+ days later, primarily of the injuries caused.

The longer backdrop is the tragedy of Kim Briggs who was hit while crossing a London road by @waverider's "fixy rider", who was rightly done for 'wanton and furious riding' (designed for horseriders btw (1861): no brake on either wheel (so breaking the law and that contributed to his conviction: 18 months YOI).

I recommend this bbc article (<1 minute read) https://www.bbc.co.uk/...uk-politics-69016715
on the proposed new offences which have been argued by Briggs' widower in persuasive fashion for years. Mostly offences (currently a cyclist can be done for either dangerous or careless riding, just as motorists can be done for dangerous or careless driving) are irrespective of result (ie injury or even death) caused. But motorists can be charged with 'causing' whereas cyclists can't (there is no such offence). The proposed amdt to law seeks to add these 'causing' offences.
A side issue to this is the increased proportion of electric motor assisted pedal cycles (EAPC) which can reach speeds most of their riders cannot sustain and likely lack the skill to manage and therefore represent an increased threat to others lower down the road user vulnerability hierarchy.

Hereby memorialized as "The Flying Enema" (or "Ænema" as the case may be?)

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Has this anecdote been added to the link below?

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=2736319#p2736319

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

I think people need to see this with a political perspective.
The majority of the British press is right wing, and mainly read by outraged white aging gammons, or lower-than-average-educated white van drivers (drivers of white vans, through they are typically white skinned too). And all these have an inbred / constantly fed diet of cyclist hating. Take the anti-cycling Daily Heil as a most typical arse-wipe-for-journalism.

This law is simply pandering to these readers, and is totally disproportionate to the actual risk to people as a whole.

It's almost like there's an election coming and they're trying to whip up a fever in the ranks of the gammons to get them out to vote Tory.🤔

The legislation won't pass into law before there's a new (and hopefully massively different) Government.that has more important things to deal with.

so was/could the pedestrian be charged with dangerous walking causing injury? i'm assuming that the cyclist suffered notable injuries and probably all they got in return is a lot of hatred for having been an unwilling part of the woman's death

GCN's take on it...

Not being argumentative for sake of it, but engaging in healthy discourse.

The reason we have speed limits on any roads is to reduce the severity and therefore the risk of Death or Serious Injury (DSi) in the case of collisions. And the primary driver in urban areas for the 20mph limits is pedestrian safety.

Eg :The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. [AA foundation].

And so regardless of if ped should have been in road or not, if the vehicle that hit a pedestrian is travelling at 20mph there's a very low chance of death.


So to your point, in the case here, then with the law change, there would have been an offence, and then there would be some degree of mitigation debated about the pedestrian's contribution to the incident. And that would flow through the sentence/fine should there be a conviction. It's not one or the other.

@pk1 Don't think we know what injuries the cyclist incurred as a result of the collision. In any case (as you know, I assume) there is no such offense as 'careless walking'. Consider the hierarchy of road user vulnerability: people take a variety of ill-considered actions which cause risks to others (the point of this sort of legislation) but stepping into the road is not one that needs the law to deter or prosecute.

@Duncan74 There was lots of chat in the press etc about the fact that the cyclist was riding well in excess of 20mph, which was the motorised vehicle speed limit on that road. Road speed limits apply only to motorised vehicles, not cycles, HPVs, EAPCs. He could have been charged with dangerous or careless riding but he could not be charged with breaking the speed limit. I assume the police and prosecuting authorities decided the behaviour of the rider did not (could they have a reasonable chance of conviction) constitute careless riding.
"With the law change, there would have been an offence . . . " you assert.

The proposed inclusion of 'causing injury or death' to the current offences would make no difference here (IANAL).
The activity of the rider (averaging over 25mph in a chain gang) at 7am (deliberately early as advised in the Park's Guidelines to Cyclists) was clearly riskier to others than a single cyclist at that speed or a chain gang riding slower, but below the threshold of 'careless'.
Anyway, given the 4th July activities in UK, this isn't happening any time soon, and as I argued up thread, it will make minimal difference to the legal framework within which people cycle in UK.
One good thing has come out of this thread: the importance of having a bottle to hand in Manchester when there's a full moon. Best laugh from ST in a month.