New law?

dvdfoz

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/ ... _1_2524848

daviesee

Bikes are more powerful these days?

Where do I get my upgrade?

Nothing new here. Just the usual - Instead of looking at the root causes, invent a new law that covers existing ones.

walkingbootweather

Daft.

If someone causes death or injury there should be a route to prosecute regardless if perpetrator is riding a bike, driving a mobility scooter, pushing a shopping trolley, kicking a football etc.

We don't need additional legislation specifically for cycling.

garryc

To be fair it's to bring cyclists in line with other road users. You can be prosecuted for dangerous driving so I see no reason not to prosecute for dangerous cycling.

_Brun_

Approximately one person per year is killed by a cyclist, and that doesn't necessarily mean there was any dangerous riding involved.

Since pedestrians also use the roads, maybe there should be a law against causing death by dangerous walking?

Clever Pun

_Brun_ wrote:

Approximately one person per year is killed by a cyclist, and that doesn't necessarily mean there was any dangerous riding involved.

Since pedestrians also use the roads, maybe there should be a law against causing death by dangerous walking?

they should all be wearing helmets too

walkingbootweather

_Brun_ wrote:

Approximately one person per year is killed by a cyclist, and that doesn't necessarily mean there was any dangerous riding involved.

Since pedestrians also use the roads, maybe there should be a law against causing death by dangerous walking?

and one for wearing a loud shirt in a built up area between the hours of 7.00pm and 6.00am with apologies to Not the nine o'clock news

Gypsum_Fantastic

_Brun_ wrote:

Approximately one person per year is killed by a cyclist

More people are killed by bees each year, I propose we ban bees.

walkingbootweather

garryc wrote:

To be fair it's to bring cyclists in line with other road users. You can be prosecuted for dangerous driving so I see no reason not to prosecute for dangerous cycling.

SInce this occured on the pavement should the bike involved be considered another road user? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7496757.stm

The perpetrator was acting irresponsibly, the fact that they were riding a bike is almost incidental. They may have well been on a skateboard or go-kart.

owenlars

_Brun_ wrote:

Since pedestrians also use the roads, maybe there should be a law against causing death by dangerous walking?

I think you'll find there is, if you walk in to someone and knock them off the pavement under a bus you will feel the hot breath of the law after you pretty quickly. I would have thought that the same would apply to cyclists.

_Brun_

I think you'll find that there isn't, and that you're rather missing my point.

Wallace1492

The sad fact is that a young girl was killed by an idiot on a bike behaving terribly.
I am happy if there is a law against dangerous cycling, might make some of the RLJers stop and think.

daviesee

garryc wrote:

To be fair it's to bring cyclists in line with other road users. You can be prosecuted for dangerous driving so I see no reason not to prosecute for dangerous cycling.

From the article:-

"Her devastated parents, Michael and Diana, of Greatworth, in Northamptonshire, were outraged when the cyclist was only charged with dangerous cycling and escaped court with a fine of £2,200."

It would appear that there already is a law.

walkingbootweather

Can anyone with a better understanding of legal workings explain why this individual couldn't have been charged with manslaughter or some other more general offence likely to result in more than a paltry fine?

_Brun_

Insufficient evidence was the reason cited in the bbc article in the above link.

UndercoverElephant

Same reason that motorists get charged with causing death by dangerous driving, it's a more severe crime which has a higher burden of proof. The fact that you can't be gaoled for dangerous cycling, even if you cause someone's death is a problem. However, I'm sure we've all seen sentences more lenient than that for drivers who end up killing someone.

bails87

UndercoverElephant
+1

to choose a local example (different, I know, because there was no evidence he was doing anything illegal other than careless driving, but, sadly that's all it takes):

[url=http://www.solihullnews.net/news/solihull-news/2010/12/23/cost-of-cyclist-s-life-just-110-105074-27875238/]Local News[/url] wrote:

The driver appeared before magistrates at Warwickshire Justice Centre in Leamington on November 15 where he admitted causing the death by careless and inconsiderate driving of mother of two Cath, aged 52, and was banned from driving for 12 months, given a 12 month community order, with 200 hours of unpaid work - known as Community Payback - and told to pay £110 costs

That's what drivers get. That's not much different from what the cyclist in this case got.

Not saying either is right, but how many cases will the proposed law be used in place of 'dangerous cycling'. i.e, how many current convictions are there for dangerous cycling that involve the victim being killed or seriously injured?

I'm not really against the law, as a step up from 'just' dangerous cycling, if you're being a tw@t and you kill someone then you should be punished accordingly. I just don't see the point in it for such small numbers.

Kieran_Burns

Wallace1492 wrote:

The sad fact is that a young girl was killed by an idiot on a bike behaving terribly.
I am happy if there is a law against dangerous cycling, might make some of the RLJers stop and think.

but there's already a law against Red Light Jumping.

vaseline

Whatever the law says, my view is that if you ride your bike on a pavement you are cycling dangerously whether you kill anyone or not. Mongs the lot of em.

bails87

Vaseline wrote:

Whatever the law says, my view is that if you ride your bike on a pavement you are cycling dangerously whether you kill anyone or not. Mongs the lot of em.

Including children?

vaseline

bails87 wrote:

Vaseline wrote:

Whatever the law says, my view is that if you ride your bike on a pavement you are cycling dangerously whether you kill anyone or not. Mongs the lot of em.

Including children?

If the Highway code doesn't allow it, then yes

clarkey cat

I think if you were cycling in such a manner where it could be proven that you had no regard for the safety of others and you hit someone & they died then you could be charged with negligent manslaughter. Indeed this could apply to walking or skateboarding too but I think it would be hard to argue that it was reasonably foreseeable that if you hit someone while walking fast that they may fall down and die.

clarkey cat

Vaseline - 2/10 trolling I'm afraid.

MUST. TRY.HARDER.

vaseline

clarkey cat wrote:

Vaseline - 2/10 trolling I'm afraid.

MUST. TRY.HARDER.

No. It just does my head in when I'm walking down the pavement and cyclinst come shooting past me. Kids included.

clarkey cat

I agree - but that doesnt mean someone is, on the face of it, riding dangerously. It just means they are riding illegally (i.e. on a pavement).

kelsen

clarkey cat wrote:

I agree - but that doesnt mean someone is, on the face of it, riding dangerously. It just means they are riding illegally (i.e. on a pavement).

In which case, Vaseline, there're probably more important things to get worked up about.

vaseline

clarkey cat wrote:

I agree - but that doesnt mean someone is, on the face of it, riding dangerously. It just means they are riding illegally (i.e. on a pavement).

I guess. If it is illegal there should be no need to implement another law that they could catch such behaviour with.

clarkey cat

well they may do - and riding illegally could count as a factor towards proving riding dangerously. for example if you are driving 31mph in a 30mph zone then you are driving illegally but not necessarily dangerously. if you are doing 70mph on the same stretch then you are driving illegally and dangerously and the fact that its a 30mph zone and you are driving much faster than that can help prove that you are in fact driving dangerously.

tarquin_foxglove

clarkey cat wrote:

I think if you were cycling in such a manner where it could be proven that you had no regard for the safety of others and you hit someone & they died then you could be charged with negligent manslaughter.

or "furious driving" which has a maximum of two years in prison.

Section 35 of The Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 covers "drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving". It declares that:

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour."

It has been reported that in the Rhiannon Bennett case, the CPS considered using it but believed the lesser charge was appropriate.

bails87

Vaseline wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Vaseline wrote:

Whatever the law says, my view is that if you ride your bike on a pavement you are cycling dangerously whether you kill anyone or not. Mongs the lot of em.

Including children?

If the Highway code doesn't allow it, then yes

So it's only dangerous if the Highway Code says you shouldn't do it?

clarkey cat

Ah the offence of Furious Driving - like the long-held right of any Englishman to shoot a Welshman with a bow and arrow who just so happens to be standing one-legged on a hay bale whilst balancing on apple on his head, in Cheshire, on Boxing Day.