Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on May 15, 2024, 10:26:49 PM
-
Have to admit that I struggle to understand why it's not covered by current laws
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016715
-
Good.
-
Have to admit that I struggle to understand why it's not covered by current laws.
I'm sure it is. This is just the Tories pandering to anti-cycling bigots with a bit of pointless window-dressing.
-
I'm sure it is. This is just the Tories pandering to anti-cycling bigots with a bit of pointless window-dressing.
Reading the story of Kim Briggs death and the statements of her husband, I'm not sure that you can claim 'anti cycling bigotry'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41034492
-
Reading the story of Kim Briggs death and the statements of her husband, I'm not sure that you can claim 'anti cycling bigotry'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41034492
The maximum sentence for "furious cycling" is only two years which doesn't seem much for somebody who was riding an illegal (on the public roads) bike and killed a woman as a direct result of that.
I notice that there is a debate going on about floating bus stops and how dangerous they are. It seems to me that the main danger is from cyclists ignoring the road markings
https://x.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194
There seems to be an attitude problem that some cyclists have that makes them think they are above the law and everybody else needs to get out of their way. Hopefully, this will send a message to them that they need to be more considerate.
-
The maximum sentence for "furious cycling" is only two years which doesn't seem much for somebody who was riding an illegal (on the public roads) bike and killed a woman as a direct result of that.
If it's fixed-wheel and has one normal brake, it is road-legal. It shouldn't be - all bikes should have two conventional brakes for riding on roads - but it is.
Fun fact - bikes have to have two brakes to be road-legal, but they don't have to be one on each wheel, and trikes often have both of them on the front wheel. Trikes often have three brakes - two normal ones and a parking brake, which stays on until released: useful on hills.
-
If it's fixed-wheel and has one normal brake, it is road-legal.
No. A bike must have two independent braking systems, one operating on the back wheel and one operating on the front wheel. A fixed wheel bike is only legal if its brake is on the front wheel. That was not the case of the man who killed Kim Briggs.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike
-
I notice that there is a debate going on about floating bus stops and how dangerous they are. It seems to me that the main danger is from cyclists ignoring the road markings
https://x.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194
I saw the item on the BBC news about this last night, which was entirely on the risk posed to pedestrians by the design. But there is also a massive risk to cyclists. I regularly use a cycle lane in London which has these floating bus stops and I loath them - in fact enough that I often risk the bus lane and main road traffic rather than have to navigate them as a cyclist.
The main problem is that bus passengers get off their bus onto a pavement and (not unreasonably, the main problem is the design) think it is continuous with the main pavement, not realising that they have to effectively cross a road (the cycle lane) to get to the main pavement. So all too often a pedestrian steps out directly into your path as a cyclist without even a glance to check it is safe. Pedestrians do not have right of way to cross a cycle path (the cyclist has priority) - they need to use exactly the same caution as crossing a normal road.
Interestingly in the BBC news item they showed all sorts of 'near misses' but only one incident of an actual collision - but in that case the fault lay entirely with the pedestrian doing exactly as I indicated above. Given that the tone of the new piece was all about risk to pedestrians you can be sure that had they filmed a collision where the cyclist was at fault that would have gone in the piece.
-
The maximum sentence for "furious cycling" is only two years which doesn't seem much for somebody who was riding an illegal (on the public roads) bike and killed a woman as a direct result of that.
But there other offences that could have been brought into play had the CPS seen fit - most notably manslaughter.
There are all sorts of careless or reckless acts that might cause death or injury (demolishing a tall wall without taking care that people aren't on the other side; failing to maintain a tree where branches may fall on people etc etc) - we don't have specific offences of 'causing death by dangerous chain saw positioning' - no we rely on general laws that allow someone to be prosecuted for acting in a dangerous or careless manner that causes death or injury - including manslaughter when the act itself is either unlawful of itself or gross negligence.
So this does smack of red meat throwing and a solution looking for a problem, given that in the case of Kim Briggs the cyclist was prosecuted, found guilty and jailed. Had the CPS considered the evidence to have been sufficient he could have been charged with manslaughter for which the maximum sentence is life.
-
No. A bike must have two independent braking systems, one operating on the back wheel and one operating on the front wheel. A fixed wheel bike is only legal if its brake is on the front wheel. That was not the case of the man who killed Kim Briggs.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike
That's true.
In a fixed wheel bike - the back wheel is braked by the rider themselves reducing peddling (so no separate brake is required), but there needs to be an independent front wheel brake.
-
Have to admit that I struggle to understand why it's not covered by current laws
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016715
It is covered by existing laws.
-
That's true.
In a fixed wheel bike - the back wheel is braked by the rider themselves reducing peddling (so no separate brake is required), but there needs to be an independent front wheel brake.
Two proper brakes should be required on fixies - the fixed wheel is hopeless for braking. I've ridden a fixed-wheel track bike with no other brake at Herne Hill velodrome, and it takes forever to stop by pedalling backwards.
-
It is covered by existing laws.
So the presiding judge was wrong?
'Sir Iain told MPs that Mr Briggs' attempt to get a cyclist prosecuted "involved a legal process that was so convoluted and difficult" even the presiding judge raised concerns and said the laws "needed to be addressed".'
-
I'd never heard of floating bus-stops before reading this thread. Now I know what they are, I agree that they seem like a pretty dopey idea.
-
I'd never heard of floating bus-stops before reading this thread. Now I know what they are, I agree that they seem like a pretty dopey idea.
There is also the 'shit ... that's my bus' syndrome. Where a person on the main pavement realises there bus is at the bus stop and runs straight across the cycle lane, eyes fixed on the bus rather than any cyclists who might, completely legitimately, be using the cycle lane between the two parts of the pavement.
-
So the presiding judge was wrong?
'Sir Iain told MPs that Mr Briggs' attempt to get a cyclist prosecuted "involved a legal process that was so convoluted and difficult" even the presiding judge raised concerns and said the laws "needed to be addressed".'
Hmm ... hardly the most compelling opinion give that the person in question was successfully charged with an offence, successfully prosecuted of that offence and jailed.
And presumably manslaughter was a clear option seeing as that requires either gross negligence or unlawfulness on the basis of the base act - and in this case the base act was unlawful as the bike wasn't legal for road use.
-
Hmm ... hardly the most compelling opinion give that the person in question was successfully charged with an offence, successfully prosecuted of that offence and jailed.
And presumably manslaughter was a clear option seeing as that requires either gross negligence or unlawfulness on the basis of the base act - and in this case the base act was unlawful as the bike wasn't legal for road use.
So the presiding judge isn't compelling but random bloke on the Internet is absolutely right. K'
-
So the presiding judge isn't compelling but random bloke on the Internet is absolutely right. K'
Nope neither he nor I are as compelling as the factual evidence - that the person in question was prosecuted, was convicted and did receive a custodial sentence. His opinion would have been far more compelling had it proved not possible to secure a conviction ... but it was.
-
So the presiding judge was wrong?
'Sir Iain told MPs that Mr Briggs' attempt to get a cyclist prosecuted "involved a legal process that was so convoluted and difficult" even the presiding judge raised concerns and said the laws "needed to be addressed".'
Just to be clear - the Sir Iain in question - the person whose quotes you have included (from the BBC article) is Sir Iain Duncan-Smith, not the presiding judge. He, at best, is paraphrasing what the presiding judge may have said.
-
Nope neither he nor I are as compelling as then factual evidence - that the person in question was prosecuted, was convicted and did receive a custodial sentence. His opinion would have been far more compelling had it proved not possible to secure a conviction ... but it was.
And yet you don't know what issues with the law he was referring to, you don't know the details of the case. Your assumption that reading a bit about it on here makes you exactly as expert as the presiding judge in the case is almost funny.
I suspect given your knee jerk reaction that the measure, an amendment in a wide ranging bill that may well get cross party support, is somehow 'redmeat' is due to you somehow seeing it as an attack on you as a 'cyclist'. There are not hordes of slavering Conservative pedestrians howling for the blood of cyclists, and it certainly wouldn't be satisfied by a fairly obscure change in a portmanteau bill.
I don't know enough about the details of the law here to say there definitely isn't a problem, and that the presiding judge has queries means I would like to know more. I'm also wondering why we might have legislation on dangerous driving, and whether this is related to similar issues in cases there which were addresses by that being introduced.
-
Just to be clear - the Sir Iain in question - the person whose quotes you have included (from the BBC article) is Sir Iain Duncan-Smith, not the presiding judge. He, at best, is paraphrasing what the presiding judge may have said.
Yes, I understand that. But given I don't have a reason to suspect IDS is lying, or misrepresenting the judge, it's still more of an impact in terms of expertise than self appointed random legal expert on a message board.
-
Re. floating bus stops:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/may/10/uk-floating-bus-stops-cycle-lanes
-
How on earth was this incident even allowed to come to court - from the evidence this seems to be a clear accident - a tragic accident, but an accident none the less.
https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-not-guilty-causing-pedestrians-death-309391
-
I don’t agree. The cyclist died because of the actions of the pedestrian. There was a case to answer.
I think you are misunderstanding my post.
This isn't about the Auriol Grey, but a more recent case in Oxford. From what I can see the cyclist in question acted exactly as he should have done on a shared path when overtaking more slowly moving pedestrians (moving slowly, making himself known to the pedestrians by ringing a bell). If anything it would appear that the woman herself was most at fault as she moved into the path of the (slowly moving) cyclist.
A tragic accident, but in our rather febrile 'the cyclist must be in the wrong' environment this guy gets hauled into court and charged with an offence that could lead to a jail sentence. Sometimes we need to recognise that accidents happen, and that fatal accidents happen. But just because someone died does not imply that someone was at fault, nor acting in a criminal manner.
-
Is there a "rather febrile 'the cyclist must be in the wrong' environment"?
Absolutely there is - there are the likes of IDS and others pushing for draconian laws to be brought in for cyclists, despite there already being an existing law in place that has been used on more than one occasion in the last couple of years to jail actual dangerous cyclists. And of course deaths involving cyclists are incredibly rare ... or rather they are incredibly rare when the party killed is not the cyclist.
Just look at the earlier media coverage of this case - which was thrown out.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-sent-elderly-woman-catapulting-33197026
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13613217/Cyclist-killed-elderly-woman-crashing-River-Thames-towpath-court-hears.html
Look at the headlines - hardly unbiased reporting when you actually read the evidence of what was a tragic accident.
-
Absolutely there is - there are the likes of IDS and others pushing for draconian laws to be brought in for cyclists, despite there already being an existing law in place that has been used on more than one occasion in the last couple of years to jail actual dangerous cyclists. And of course deaths involving cyclists are incredibly rare ... or rather they are incredibly rare when the party killed is not the cyclist.
Just look at the earlier media coverage of this case - which was thrown out.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-sent-elderly-woman-catapulting-33197026
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13613217/Cyclist-killed-elderly-woman-crashing-River-Thames-towpath-court-hears.html
Look at the headlines - hardly unbiased reporting when you actually read the evidence of what was a tragic accident.
Not sure IDS and some unbiased reporting amount to an 'environment', and I'm not sure that linking it to the case you've raised is justified since I don't see we have enough evidence to do so.
ETA - for clarity, I don't think you can link the reporting of the case, and I'm not sure it qualifies as biased, with the fact that the case itself was brought as evidence of an environment. You seem to be implying that the case was brought out of bias.
-
Not sure IDS and some unbiased reporting amount to an 'environment', and I'm not sure that linking it to the case you've raised is justified since I don't see we have enough evidence to do so.
There is a major campaign to bring in new laws specifically for cyclists when there is a dead or serious injury - yet in collisions between cyclists and pedestrians it is probably just as likely that the cyclist rather than the pedestrian will be the more injured (or worse) party. That, of course isn't the case for a collision between a car (or other motorised vehicle) and a cyclist or pedestrian where it will be almost inevitable that the cyclist or pedestrian will be injured more.
And in the tiny number of cases there have been quite a few where it was clearly the pedestrian at fault. If we are to bring in new laws to deal with dangerous cycling that cause death or serious injury to a pedestrian, should we not balance that we new laws to deal with dangerous behaviour from pedestrians that causes death or serious injury to a cyclist.
Well actually we need neither as there are existing laws to deal with these incidences.
Oh and just to clear on the statistics - in the 5 years from 2018 to 2022 there were just 9 deaths of pedestrians or cyclists involving collisions between one and the other (the stats don't tell us who was to blame). For comparison in the same period there over 2000 pedestrian fatalities involving other vehicles.
-
There is a major campaign to bring in new laws specifically for cyclists when there is a dead or serious injury - yet in collisions between cyclists and pedestrians it is probably just as likely that the cyclist rather than the pedestrian will be the more injured (or worse) party. That, of course isn't the case for a collision between a car (or other motorised vehicle) and a cyclist or pedestrian where it will be almost inevitable that the cyclist or pedestrian will be injured more.
And in the tiny number of cases there have been quite a few where it was clearly the pedestrian at fault. If we are to bring in new laws to deal with dangerous cycling that cause death or serious injury to a pedestrian, should we not balance that we new laws to deal with dangerous behaviour from pedestrians that causes death or serious injury to a cyclist.
Well actually we need neither as there are existing laws to deal with these incidences.
Oh and just to clear on the statistics - in the 5 years from 2018 to 2022 there were just 9 deaths of pedestrians or cyclists involving collisions between one and the other (the stats don't tell us who was to blame). For comparison in the same period there over 2000 pedestrian fatalities involving other vehicles.
I think 'major' is your personal view. The vast majority of people won't have heard of it. It is also your personal view that it's not necessary.
And again, I don't think any of that amounts to an environment. Nor that there is any link to the case itself being brought which is your implication.
-
I think 'major' is your personal view. The vast majority of people won't have heard of it. It is also your personal view that it's not necessary.
And again, I don't think any of that amounts to an environment. Nor that there is any link to the case itself being brought which is your implication.
Given that there are a tiny number of pedestrian fatalities involving cyclists it is remarkable how many of them get massive press coverage. Strange that most of the thousands of pedestrian deaths involving cars, lorries, buses etc hardly blip on the radar of even the local press, let alone national level coverage of the type seen in this case.
-
Given that there are a tiny number of pedestrian fatalities involving cyclists it is remarkable how many of them get massive press coverage. Strange that most of the thousands of pedestrian deaths involving cars, lorries, buses etc hardly blip on the radar of even the local press, let alone national level coverage of the type seen in this case.
Man bites dog effect.
-
Man bites dog effect.
And you don't think that if there was huge campaigning (including from major newspapers) to change the law to deal with all these 'reckless' dog-biters that it wouldn't be reasonable to describe the environment around dog biting as ... err ... febrile.
-
And you don't think that if there was huge campaigning (including from major newspapers) to change the law to deal with all these 'reckless' dog-biters that it wouldn't be reasonable to describe the environment around dog biting as ... err ... febrile.
There isn't 'huge campaigning' so it isn't reasonable.
-
There isn't 'huge campaigning' so it isn't reasonable.
There is - led mainly by Matthew Briggs, whose wife was killed. While it is completely understandable that someone so affected by an extremely rare incidence to want 'something to be done' (despite the fact that the cyclist in question was convicted and jailed) the role of legislators etc is to act in the broader public interest. Hard cases make bad laws so to speak.
But the campaign has been successful enough to get senior politicians on board and for both major parties to propose changes in legislation in their manifestos. That's one hell of a huge and successful campaign to 'deal' with perhaps a one in every two years incidences that can (and have been) dealt with under existing laws.
-
Imagine the following scenarios - by the way scenario 1 is very common, scenario 2 exceptionally rare.
1. Car driving at 25mph in a 30mph zone - pedestrian steps out in front of car and is killed.
2. Cyclist cycling at at 25mph in a 30mph zone - pedestrian steps out in front of cyclist and is killed. How tragic for both the pedestrian and awful for the driver having that happen to them.
What would be the media response. In case 1 it would be all about a tragic accident, how the driver was carefully driving at way less than the speed limit and couldn't do anything. In case 2 it would be all about reckless speeding cyclist placing poor pedestrian in terrible danger. Tragic for the pedestrian and 'something must be done' about these cyclists.
But also some basic physics - the force imparted to a pedestrian from a collision with a car at 25mph (assuming the car weighs about 1500kg) will be about 15 times that of the force imparted to a pedestrian from a collision with a bike at 25mph (assuming the bike and rider weighs about 100kg). So to put this in context - a bike travelling at 25mph (that's pretty fast for most cyclists) will impart the equivalent impact force in a collision as a car travelling at less than 2mph!!
-
There is - led mainly by Matthew Briggs, whose wife was killed. While it is completely understandable that someone so affected by an extremely rare incidence to want 'something to be done' (despite the fact that the cyclist in question was convicted and jailed) the role of legislators etc is to act in the broader public interest. Hard cases make bad laws so to speak.
But the campaign has been successful enough to get senior politicians on board and for both major parties to propose changes in legislation in their manifestos. That's one hell of a huge and successful campaign to 'deal' with perhaps a one in every two years incidences that can (and have been) dealt with under existing laws.
It's not a huge campaigning. Just because a campaign has some success does not make it huge, nor the environment febrile. Again I doubt there are more than a few people aware of it.
I think you might have been better adding the case to the thread linked to below rather than this one?
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21666.msg885914#msg885914
Given my involvement in both, I've asked the rest of the mod team to consider approaches.
-
Imagine the following scenarios - by the way scenario 1 is very common, scenario 2 exceptionally rare.
1. Car driving at 25mph in a 30mph zone - pedestrian steps out in front of car and is killed.
2. Cyclist cycling at at 25mph in a 30mph zone - pedestrian steps out in front of cyclist and is killed. How tragic for both the pedestrian and awful for the driver having that happen to them.
What would be the media response. In case 1 it would be all about a tragic accident, how the driver was carefully driving at way less than the speed limit and couldn't do anything. In case 2 it would be all about reckless speeding cyclist placing poor pedestrian in terrible danger. Tragic for the pedestrian and 'something must be done' about these cyclists.
But also some basic physics - the force imparted to a pedestrian from a collision with a car at 25mph (assuming the car weighs about 1500kg) will be about 15 times that of the force imparted to a pedestrian from a collision with a bike at 25mph (assuming the bike and rider weighs about 100kg). So to put this in context - a bike travelling at 25mph (that's pretty fast for most cyclists) will impart the equivalent impact force in a collision as a car travelling at less than 2mph!!
And again man bites dog.
-
It's not a huge campaigning. Just because a campaign has some success does not make it huge, nor the environment febrile. Again I doubt there are more than a few people aware of it.
I suspect there are loads of people aware of the campaign given the huge amount of publicity that the original case and any subsequent one gets. This is exactly the kind of campaign the right wing press (e.g. Mail, Express, Telegraph) loves to get behind - and that is exactly what they did.
I think you might have been better adding the case to the thread linked to below rather than this one?
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21666.msg885914#msg885914
Given my involvement in both, I've asked the rest of the mod team to consider approaches.
Yes -would be better added to that thread. I'd forgotten we had two threads on related topics, thought there was only one.
-
Moderator:
Posts that were originally in a 'single issue' thread have been merged into this thread.
-
Just to flag that in terms of a 'febrile environment' of cyclists having to be in the wrong, there's an earlier thread on this from 6 years ago. Damn slow fever.
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15944.msg743448#msg743448
-
Just to flag that in terms of a 'febrile environment' of cyclists having to be in the wrong, there's an earlier thread on this from 6 years ago. Damn slow fever.
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15944.msg743448#msg743448
Just because the media attitude toward cyclists has been negative for many years doesn't imply that it isn't febrile. And given that deaths are very rare you'd only expect that febrile environment to tip into full-on anti-cyclist fury every once in a while. Which is what happened in the Oxford case ... although ... as it turned out the evidence showed that the cyclist had done absolutely nothing wrong.
-
Just because the media attitude toward cyclists has been negative for many years doesn't imply that it isn't febrile. And given that deaths are very rare you'd only expect that febrile environment to tip into full-on anti-cyclist fury every once in a while. Which is what happened in the Oxford case ... although ... as it turned out the evidence showed that the cyclist had done absolutely nothing wrong.
If it's taken 6 years for the law not to be passed, it's not a febrile environment.
-
So the presiding judge isn't compelling but random bloke on the Internet is absolutely right. K'
I think you have lost sight of the original point. You claimed:
Have to admit that I struggle to understand why it's not covered by current laws
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016715
PD pointed out that, in at least one case, a cyclist riding dangerously and killing a pedestrian did get convicted. This implies that the offence is covered by existing laws. Otherwise how was a successful conviction obtained?
The fact that it was difficult to obtain the conviction and a judge said so is irrelevant to PD's rebuttal of your point.
-
I think you have lost sight of the original point. You claimed:
PD pointed out that, in at least one case, a cyclist riding dangerously and killing a pedestrian did get convicted. This implies that the offence is covered by existing laws. Otherwise how was a successful conviction obtained?
The fact that it was difficult to obtain the conviction and a judge said so is irrelevant to PD's rebuttal of your point.
Discussions move on. This point was about PD saying he was right and the presiding judge was wrong about the law. So where's the problem with my post as regards that?
-
Discussions move on. This point was about PD saying he was right and the presiding judge was wrong about the law.
No it wasn't. You tried to make it that, but it wasn't the point.
-
No it wasn't. You tried to make it that, but it wasn't the point.
So you don't think discussions can move on. OK
-
Discussions move on. This point was about PD saying he was right and the presiding judge was wrong about the law. So where's the problem with my post as regards that?
Stop lying NS.
I pointed out that the quote you claimed was from the presiding judge was not from him at all. It was from IDS - hardly an unbiased source, given that he is the leading parliamentary mouthpiece for a change in the law. I (and I suspect you) have no idea what the judge said, because we have no direct opinion from him.
However what we do know is that in this case the cyclist in question was successfully charged with an offence, successfully prosecuted of that offence and jailed.
And if you read the reports manslaughter was also an option (although the evidence in this case didn't meet the threshold) and the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life.
And I am aware of at least one other case in the last couple of years where the current law has been used successfully to prosecute and jail a cyclist who caused the death of a pedestrian. And given that there are only a handful of deaths involving collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian (and some will involve the death of the cyclist and some will be the fault of the pedestrian) then that seems to be a very high incident to successful prosecution rate.
-
Stop lying NS.
I pointed out that the quote you claimed was from the presiding judge was not from him at all. It was from IDS - hardly an unbiased source, given that he is the leading parliamentary mouthpiece for a change in the law. I (and I suspect you) have no idea what the judge said, because we have no direct opinion from him.
However what we do know is that in this case the cyclist in question was successfully charged with an offence, successfully prosecuted of that offence and jailed.
And if you read the reports manslaughter was also an option (although the evidence in this case didn't meet the threshold) and the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life.
And I am aware of at least one other case in the last couple of years where the current law has been used successfully to prosecute and jail a cyclist who caused the death of a pedestrian. And given that there are only a handful of deaths involving collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian (and some will involve the death of the cyclist and some will be the fault of the pedestrian) then that seems to be a very high incident to successful prosecution rate.
And I answered your post. I don't have a reason to suspect that IDS is lying about this. If he was then I suspect the judge might speak up about his opinion being lied about. And you remain random Internet bloke.
-
I don't have a reason to suspect that IDS is lying about this.
Why - he's hardly someone who holds dear to the truth is he. And he is clearly biased as he is a vociferous anti-cyclist campaigner.
So over to you - not interested in what IDS says that the judge said. If the judge actually said something of that nature then presumably there will be a record of his actual words. Come back when you've found them.
But non-the-less - even if the judge actually said something of this nature the evidence speaks a different story. From what I can see the likelihood of a cyclist being prosecuted, convicted and jailed for an incident which resulted in the death of another road user is greater than that for a driver of a motorised vehicle.
-
So you don't think discussions can move on. OK
I think moving goalposts is disingenuous.
If you want to discuss the difficulty of convicting dangerous cyclists of cycling dangerously, fine. But you were bringing it up in a desperate attempt to refute PD's obviously true point.
Let me be a bit more constructive: you could have accepted PD's point and then explicitly moved things on by saying something like "OK the law does exist but it's really hard to apply as evidenced by ....".
To move things on, an offence of death by dangerous cycling is probably too narrowly focused. Deaths of pedestrians from cyclists are not that common but there are several hundred injuries every year. If you are a cyclist cycling dangerously and knock somebody over and break their arm, don't you deserve some sort of punishment?
Edit: it was difficult to find stats but this article summarises them quite well
https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycling-and-pedestrians
-
Why - he's hardly someone who holds dear to the truth is he. And he is clearly biased as he is a vociferous anti-cyclist campaigner.
So over to you - not interested in what IDS says that the judge said. If the judge actually said something of that nature then presumably there will be a record of his actual words. Come back when you've found them.
But non-the-less - even if the judge actually said something of this nature the evidence speaks a different story. From what I can see the likelihood of a cyclist being prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for an incident which resulted in the death of another road user is greater than that for a driver of a motorised vehicle.
I suspect he's telling the truth because as covered the judge could just say he's not, and is unlikely to allow his name to be used in that way. As already pointed out.
-
I think moving goalposts is disingenuous.
If you want to discuss the difficulty of convicting dangerous cyclists of cycling dangerously, fine. But you were bringing it up in a desperate attempt to refute PD's obviously true point.
Let me be a bit more constructive: you could have accepted PD's point and then explicitly moved things on by saying something like "OK the law does exist but it's really hard to apply as evidenced by ....".
To move things on, an offence of death by dangerous cycling is probably too narrowly focused. Deaths of pedestrians from cyclists are not that common but there are several hundred injuries every year. If you are a cyclist cycling dangerously and knock somebody over and break their arm, don't you deserve some sort of punishment?
Edit: it was difficult to find stats but this article summarises them quite well
https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycling-and-pedestrians
I think if the presiding judge thinks thers is need for Reform then it raises the question that the law does nor adequately cover the issue. Prof D is then claiming that tge opinion of the judge was wrong, and then switched to we should assume that IDS is lying about the judge's opinion.
I don't know if the law is adequate. Like Prof D, I'm just a random Internet bloke.
-
Prof D is then claiming that tge opinion of the judge was wrong ...
I'm not claiming any such thing given that neither you nor I have seen the opinion of the judge - rather than a second hand claim from an anti-cyclist campaigner on what the judge may (or may not) have said.
But the facts remain - in this case, and indeed in at least one other I'm aware of, the current law was sufficiently robust for the cyclist to be charged, prosecuted and sentenced. And in both cases the cyclist was also charged (but not found guilty) of manslaughter - and manslaughter has a maximum life sentence.
And if you think the maximum sentencing is too lenient, you can change that - indeed the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving was increased to life just a couple of years ago.
-
I'm not claiming any such thing given that neither you nor I have seen the opinion of the judge - rather than a second hand claim from an anti-cyclist campaigner on what the judge may (or may not) have said.
But the facts remain - in this case, and indeed in at least one other I'm aware of the current law was sufficiently robust for the cyclist to be charged, prosecuted and sentenced. And in both cases the cyclist was also charged (but not found guilty) of manslaughter - and manslaughter has a maximum life sentence.
And if you think the maximum sentencing is too lenient, you can change that - indeed the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving was increased to life just a couple of years ago.
You think the law does not need changing. The judge appears to disagree. I think it's worth finding put more because you are random bloke on internet. You haven't shown any evidence that IDS is lying, and you haven't dealt with the issue that if he was it would seem likely that the judge might speak up.
I haven't said anything that indicates that I think the maximum sentencing is too lenient so why suggest that?
-
The judge appears to disagree.
FFS NS - we have no idea what the judge thinks as we have nothing from her.
By the way - I've just read the judge's summary remarks on the case and I can't see anything where she indicates that it was difficult to prosecute nor that the law should be changed.
-
I think if the presiding judge thinks thers is need for Reform then it raises the question that the law does nor adequately cover the issue.
I agree that may be the case.
Prof D is then claiming that tge opinion of the judge was wrong, and then switched to we should assume that IDS is lying about the judge's opinion.
He's not claiming that the opinion of the judge was wrong. He's claiming that Iain Duncan Smith's reporting of the opinion is not reliable.
Given that a cyclist has been convicted and imprisoned there are only three possibilities:
1. You are misinterpreting IDS's words
2. IDS misinterpreted the judge's words
3. The judge is wrong.
Which of those three options do you claim is the case?
Anyway, what do you say to the point that the new law is too narrowly focused. Only about three people die every year following collisions with cyclists but hundreds are injured. Any new law needs to cover injury too IMO.
-
I agree that may be the case.
He's not claiming that the opinion of the judge was wrong. He's claiming that Iain Duncan Smith's reporting of the opinion is not reliable.
Given that a cyclist has been convicted and imprisoned there are only three possibilities:
1. You are misinterpreting IDS's words
2. IDS misinterpreted the judge's words
3. The judge is wrong.
Which of those three options do you claim is the case?
Anyway, what do you say to the point that the new law is too narrowly focused. Only about three people die every year following collisions with cyclists but hundreds are injured. Any new law needs to cover injury too IMO.
Those aren't the only three possibilities. It is possible that IDS is interpreting the judge's words correctly. Again if he isn't why isn't the judge correcting him?
I think that it's worth looking at the law overall to provide clarity if needed, and that it's not just a 'febrile environment' that all cyclists are in the wrong that might prompt that.
-
I agree that may be the case.
He's not claiming that the opinion of the judge was wrong. He's claiming that Iain Duncan Smith's reporting of the opinion is not reliable.
Given that a cyclist has been convicted and imprisoned there are only three possibilities:
1. You are misinterpreting IDS's words
2. IDS misinterpreted the judge's words
3. The judge is wrong.
Which of those three options do you claim is the case?
There are other options - so it might be that from a narrow judge perspective the judiciary might like a change to the law, but that it wouldn't be in the public interest given how few likely cases there would be. I think it is quite likely that the judiciary might like many, many very specific laws for every eventuality, but that this wouldn't work for the broader legal system, nor be in the public interest.
-
There are other options - so it might be that from a narrow judge perspective the judiciary might like a change to the law, but that it wouldn't be in the public interest given how few likely cases there would be. I think it is quite likely that the judiciary might like many, many very specific laws for every eventuality, but that this wouldn't work for the broader legal system, nor be in the public interest.
Writes random bloke on internet
-
Anyway, what do you say to the point that the new law is too narrowly focused. Only about three people die every year following collisions with cyclists but hundreds are injured. Any new law needs to cover injury too IMO.
The narrowness of the law is a major criticism for a change in the law. Apparently many, many more pedestrians are killed each year by cattle than by cyclists - should we suggest a 'causing death through not appropriately managing your cattle' law. Probably not as if there is clear negligence then I'm sure there are existing laws that would cover it.
Just for completeness there already are provisions for dangerous, inconsiderate and careless cycling under the 1988 Road Traffic Act - so those would presumably cover injury. The change to the law does specifically seem to be about a single offence of causing death by dangerous cycling (to mirror causing death by dangerous driving). But the latter has a couple of hundred convictions every year - as several thousand people die every year due to road traffic accidents involving driving. At best there might be a couple for the proposed law - but even that assumes that all deaths involving collisions between a cyclist and a pedestrian:
1. Involve the pedestrian dying
2. With the fault lying with the cyclist
3. That the cyclist was acting in a dangerous manner.
And we already have two pieces of legislation where individuals can be charged if those three criteria are met - Wanton and Furious Driving and Manslaughter. And we've seen (proportionately given how few cases there are) more cyclist convicted and jailed per death and car drivers. So it seems the law works.
The one area which might need looking at is maximum sentencing - which is two years for Wanton and Furious Driving, although life for Manslaughter.
But you also must take into account the risk and level of responsibility and accountability when you get on a bike (that weighs a few kg and can probably travel at best 30mph) and when you get in a 1500kg car that can easily travel at 70mph+. The basic risks are not the same - noting that the collision force of a bike travelling at 30mph is probably equivalent to a car travelling at less than walking pace.
-
Writes random bloke on internet
A pretty balanced and thoughtful article from a 'random bloke on the internet', who just happens to be a barrister.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/20/some-thoughts-on-charlie-alliston-and-death-on-the-roads/
-
A pretty balanced and thoughtful article from a 'random bloke on the internet', who just happens to be a barrister.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/20/some-thoughts-on-charlie-alliston-and-death-on-the-roads/ (https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/20/some-thoughts-on-charlie-alliston-and-death-on-the-roads/)
I agree it's balanced and thoughtful. I don't think I disagree with any of it.
-
Those aren't the only three possibilities. It is possible that IDS is interpreting the judge's words correctly. Again if he isn't why isn't the judge correcting him?
I think that it's worth looking at the law overall to provide clarity if needed, and that it's not just a 'febrile environment' that all cyclists are in the wrong that might prompt that.
There are other options - so it might be that from a narrow judge perspective the judiciary might like a change to the law, but that it wouldn't be in the public interest given how few likely cases there would be. I think it is quite likely that the judiciary might like many, many very specific laws for every eventuality, but that this wouldn't work for the broader legal system, nor be in the public interest.
They are the only three options with respect to NS's attempted rebuttal of PD's point. NS quoted IDS to refute PD's point that there is a law that covers death by dangerous cycling. Since a cyclist got convicted of killing a pedestrian, the only options are NS is wrong, IDS is wrong or the judge is wrong.
-
They are the only three options with respect to NS's attempted rebuttal of PD's point. NS quoted IDS to refute PD's point that there is a law that covers death by dangerous cycling. Since a cyclist got convicted of killing a pedestrian, the only options are NS is wrong, IDS is wrong or the judge is wrong.
Or you are, and it may well be my fault for not being clear. I highlighted the judge as having concerns that the law had problems in making prosecution very difficult, and that hence the law qas not adequate for what was needed. At no point did I claim, imply, or suggest that prosecutions in individual cases was impossible.
-
I agree it's balanced and thoughtful. I don't think I disagree with any of it.
I think it is easy to a perceived problem and conclude that 'the law must be changed'. But there are a couple of points that I feel must always be considered before taking that step.
1. We've just had the King's Speech setting out a legislative programme for the government - that will all take up limited parliamentary time. So were something else to be slotted in to that programme - because 'the law must be changed', what other piece of legislation should be bumped in order to carve out the parliamentary time. So it becomes about priorities - so perhaps this 'the law must be changed' argument has merit, but potentially it has less merit than changing the law on a range of other matters.
2. Will it actually make a difference - so in this case are there cyclists who had caused death by dangerous cycling who have escaped justice? Now this is the killer point here - I doubt that a change to the law would result in any more cyclists being convicted (unless it is grossly unjust). So to that end a new law will make no difference. There is also the matter of sentencing and perhaps two years maximum is too low, but that can be changed without bring in a completely new law (as indeed happened for dangerous driving in 2022).
Point being that if a new law will not change the number of cyclists convicted because they caused death by dangerous cycling nor their sentencing then we are looking at pure 'tokenism'. I get that those affected will often campaign vociferously and might 'feel better' if 'the law must be changed' comes to fruition but that shouldn't be justification if the revised law makes no difference in practice to who gets convicted and what sentence they serve.
-
Or you are, and it may well be my fault for not being clear. I highlighted the judge as having concerns that the law had problems in making prosecution very difficult, and that hence the law qas not adequate for what was needed. At no point did I claim, imply, or suggest that prosecutions in individual cases was impossible.
You brought it up in your attempt to refute PD's point that there is a law that covers death by dangerous cycling. What were we supposed to think?
-
I think it is easy to a perceived problem and conclude that 'the law must be changed'. But there are a couple of points that I feel must always be considered before taking that step.
1. We've just had the King's Speech setting out a legislative programme for the government - that will all take up limited parliamentary time. So were something else to be slotted in to that programme - because 'the law must be changed', what other piece of legislation should be bumped in order to carve out the parliamentary time. So it becomes about priorities - so perhaps this 'the law must be changed' argument has merit, but it has less merit than changing the law on a range of other matters.
2. Will it actually make a difference - so in this case are there cyclists who had caused death by dangerous cycling who have escaped justice. Now this is the killer point here - I doubt that a change to the law would result in any more cyclists being convicted (unless it is grossly unjust). So to that end a new law will make no difference. There is also the matter of sentencing and perhaps two years maximum is too low, but that can be changed without bring in a completely new law (as indeed happened for dangerous driving in 2022).
Point being that if a new law will not change the number of cyclists convicted because they caused death by dangerous cycling nor their sentencing then we are looking at pure 'tokenism'. I get that those affected will often campaign vociferously and might 'feel better' if 'the law must be changed' comes to fruition but that shouldn't be justification if the revised law makes no difference in practice to who gets convicted and what sentence they serve.
I don't disagree about the question of urgency. That doesn't mean that there is no problem or that any attempt to change the legislation is evidence of a 'febrile environment' that cyclists are always in the wrong.
I agree it doesn't need a completely new law, that then though means it might be possible to achieve as an amendment in laws that are going through if there is a sufficient connection. If the law is unclear enough to cause issues in how to prosecute cases, then that seems sufficient reason to update them to me.
And as an aside, it's good to see a programme of legislative change that is as large as yesterday. I suspect that one of the reasons it nearly went through last session is that there was no legislative programme at all as the Tories had given up.
-
You brought it up in your attempt to refute PD's point that there is a law that covers death by dangerous cycling. What were we supposed to think?
I brought it up as a question to the idea that the law was fine. If the presiding judge I'm a case is expressing concerns about the process then I think it's worth looking at.
-
I highlighted the judge as having concerns that the law had problems in making prosecution very difficult ...
Firstly - you never did as you have continually failed to provide any actual evidence that the judge actually said this - indeed it was me you had to point out to you that the claimed quote to this effect was from IDS and not the judge.
Secondly the argument that the current law makes prosecution very difficult seems to fail the test of facts.
There was a review of cycling safety a while ago and that looked back at successful prosecutions resulting in jail under the current law - they cited not just the Alliston case (in 2017), but further successful prosecutions in 2015, 2013, 2009, 2008(x2). So in the previous 9 years there had been at least 6 successful prosecutions where a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian had caused the death of a pedestrian. Yet in that period there would have been perhaps 20 cases of deaths in collisions with cyclists. So that's a successful prosecution rate of the order of 20-30% which is astonishing high and way higher than the successful prosecution rate for causing death by dangerous driving, which is just 10% using the same criterion - successful conviction resulting in jail per death involving a car/cycle.
-
If the presiding judge I'm a case is expressing concerns about the process then I think it's worth looking at.
Firstly you keep making this claim yet you have failed to provide the evidence - merely a quote from IDS.
But secondly, even if a judge did make that claim, that should never be determinative that the law should be changed, for the reasons I've pointed out, specifically:
1. The need to devote parliamentary time to change the law and whether this is the best use of that parliamentary time.
2. Whether a change in the law would actually make any difference in terms of successful prosecution rates (I think given that successful prosecution rates seem very high then that seems unlikely) and sentencing levels and whether this can be achieved more easily through mechanisms that do not require a fundamental change to the law (e.g. changing maximum sentencing under existing laws).
And of course, most fundamentally whether that claim is credible (regardless of who is making that claim) by looking at the facts of conviction rates vs incidents (most of which will, of course be purely accidental and/or never come close to any threshold for criminal liability).
-
I brought it up as a question to the idea that the law was fine.
It is clear that you were trying to refute the assertion that there was a law at all.
-
It is clear that you were trying to refute the assertion that there was a law at all.
is it? Where?
-
is it? Where?
Here:
It is covered by existing laws.
So the presiding judge was wrong?
'Sir Iain told MPs that Mr Briggs' attempt to get a cyclist prosecuted "involved a legal process that was so convoluted and difficult" even the presiding judge raised concerns and said the laws "needed to be addressed".'
-
Here:
So the presiding judge was wrong?
'Sir Iain told MPs that Mr Briggs' attempt to get a cyclist prosecuted "involved a legal process that was so convoluted and difficult" even the presiding judge raised concerns and said the laws "needed to be addressed".'
That doesn't say that. That raises the idea that that the concerns about how the law works might be valid. Not that there is no law. The OP was already expressing my wonder that the law seemed to cover it but I wasn't sure
-
That doesn't say that. That raises the idea that that the concerns about how the law works might be valid. Not that there is no law. The OP was already expressing my wonder that the law seemed to cover it but I wasn't sure
And even so the claim seems rather undermined by the evidence.
'Sir Iain told MPs that Mr Briggs' attempt to get a cyclist prosecuted "involved a legal process that was so convoluted and difficult" ..'
Yet the legal process was successful - Alliston was charged (actually charged with two potential offences), was convicted on one charge (Wanton & Furious driving) but acquitted on manslaughter and received a custodial sentence.
And for the record I would hope that all criminal legal processes are thorough and based on the presumption of innocence for the accused with the burden of proof lying with the prosecution. Sure someone who feels they are the victim of a crime might want the accused convicted and locked up easily - that is an understandable response. But the legal due process should always prevail even if that seems frustrating for a victim.
-
And even so the claim seems rather undermined by the evidence.
'Sir Iain told MPs that Mr Briggs' attempt to get a cyclist prosecuted "involved a legal process that was so convoluted and difficult" ..'
Yet the legal process was successful - Alliston was charged (actually charged with two potential offences), was convicted on one charge (Wanton & Furious driving) but acquitted on manslaughter and received a custodial sentence.
And for the record I would hope that all criminal legal processes are thorough and based on the presumption of innocence for the accused with the burden of proof lying with the prosecution. Sure someone who feels they are the victim of a crime might want the accused convicted and locked up easily - that is an understandable response. But the legal due process should always prevail even if that seems frustrating for a victim.
Where's the evidence that what was being sought was to reduce the criminal proceedings being thorough?
-
Where's the evidence that what was being sought was to reduce the criminal proceedings being thorough?
Right back at you.
Where is the evidence that the current process is 'convoluted and difficult' - noting that in this case the individual was successfully prosecuted, convicted and received a custodial sentence.
And that the 'conviction rate with custodial sentence' for cyclists involved in an accident resulting in the death of another road user is higher than for car drivers and massively higher than for spiking incidents.
If the process is so 'convoluted and difficult' how come conviction rates are so high.
-
Right back at you.
Where is the evidence that the current process is 'convoluted and difficult' - noting that in this case the individual was successfully prosecuted, convicted and received a custodial sentence.
And that the 'conviction rate with custodial sentence' for cyclists involved in an accident resulting in the death of another road user is higher than for car drivers and massively higher than for spiking incidents.
If the process is so 'convoluted and difficult' how come conviction rates are so high.
I've cited IDS's statement about the judge, and that the judge has not challenged them. Thar's not sufficient for you but was already covered. And that it made it worth lookung at not that it was true. So where's your evidence for your claim, rather than indulging in whataboutery?
-
I've cited IDS's statement about the judge, and that the judge has not challenged them. Thar's not sufficient for you but was already covered. So where's your evidence for your claim, rather than indulging in whataboutery?
Yawn - we've been through this ad nauseam.
I'd rather rely on facts - e.g. rates of incidents, rates of convictions etc to determine whether it is difficult to gain prosecutions in particular types of cases rather than the opinions of a right wing ex-tory leader.
So where is your evidence that dangerous cyclists are killing people and 'getting away with it'? I can see absolutely no evidence to support this notion, which would be the clear outcome if the legal process was too difficult to get prosecutions. But of course in the real world (rather than in IDS's head), it isn't.
-
Yawn - we've been through this ad nauseam.
I'd rather rely on facts - e.g. rates of incidents, rates of convictions etc to determine whether it is difficult to gain prosecutions in particular types of cases rather than the opinions of a right wing ex-tory leader.
So where is your evidence that dangerous cyclists are killing people and 'getting away with it'? I can see absolutely no evidence to support this notion, which would be the clear outcome if the legal process was too difficult to get prosecutions. But of course in the real world (rather than in IDS's head), it isn't.
I haven't claimed cyclists are killing people and getting away with it, so if you are so keen on facts that's not a great look.
And nice attempt at evasion from your implication that this was about trying to reduce the thoroughness of the judicial process. Got any facts about that?
-
I haven't claimed cyclists are killing people and getting away with it ...
But that would be the obvious conclusion if the current legal process was too difficult and convoluted to get a prosecution. So if you don't think there are cyclists killing people and 'getting away with it' then presumably you accept that the current law is not too difficult and convoluted to get a prosecution.
And if there aren't cyclists killing people and 'getting away with it' then why on earth would you think there is a need to change the law.
You are a bit all over the place NS.
-
But that would be the obvious conclusion if the current legal process was too difficult and convoluted to get a prosecution. So if you don't think there are cyclists killing people and 'getting away with it' then presumably you accept that the current law is not too difficult and convoluted to get a prosecution.
And if there aren't cyclists killing people and 'getting away with it' then why on earth would you think there is a need to change the law.
You are a bit all over the place NS.
No, the obvious conclusion with the judge in a case where the cyclist was prosecuted but where according to IDS they said, and they haven't challenged it, that the process was overly difficult is that the process is overly difficult.
And I note you not only didn't provide the evidence that thus was about trying to make the judicial process less thorough than it should be, you edited that bit out of my post.
-
That doesn't say that.
What doesn't say what?
That raises the idea that that the concerns about how the law works might be valid. Not that there is no law. The OP was already expressing my wonder that the law seemed to cover it but I wasn't sure
Context. It was a reply to PD's message. A reasonable person would assume you were trying to refute it.
-
No, the obvious conclusion with the judge in a case where the cyclist was prosecuted but where according to IDS they said, and they haven't challenged it, that the process was overly difficult is that the process is overly difficult.
Is that sentence supposed to be remotely intelligible.
And I note you not only didn't provide the evidence that thus was about trying to make the judicial process less thorough than it should be, you edited that bit out of my post.
Or that one.