New law?
Comments
-
I was all set to email the MP to protest, but then I read the article. She seems to be proposing that the law treats people who kill someone while cycling dangerously the same as people who kill someone while driving dangerously.
In principle, I can't see a problem with that, although I seriously doubt whether it would have made much difference to the outcome of this particular case given the threshold of sheer awfulness that motorists have to breach before they can be prosecuted for the equivalent offence.
In practice, however, I have to question whether it's a good use of Parliamentary time.0 -
clarkey cat wrote: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.
It is still part of the statute books...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/35 amended in 1948 to remove the reference to hard labour.
In 2009 25 prosecutions were brought using section 35 and 5 people went to prison after being convicted. http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/ByDate/20101109/writtenanswers/part008.html
Using the power of google, find me one instance ever of an Englishman using the 'he was welsh and inside the city walls of Chester' defence...0 -
Surely what should be considered is intent and culpability, not mode of transport. Motor vehicles are potentially the most potent weapons that many of us may have contact with on a regular basis so a special case can be made for them.
There will be idiots who can cause injury or death in all manner of ways. If you are going to legislate specifically against inappropriate cycling then why not inappropriate skiing, surfing, skating, kite flying, golfing etc?
By all means use the full force of the law to prosecute such behaviour but additional legislation should not be necessary.Nobody told me we had a communication problem0 -
[/quote]Using the power of google, find me one instance ever of an Englishman using the 'he was welsh and inside the city walls of Chester' defence...
Who needs actual proof when Adam Ricketts of Corrie and Tory pin-up fame is championing its repeal?
http://iccheshireonline.icnetwork.co.uk ... _page.html0 -
tarquin_foxglove wrote:In 2009 25 prosecutions were brought using section 35 and 5 people went to prison after being convicted. http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/ByDate/20101109/writtenanswers/part008.html
As an aside, the MP asking the question in the above link is the same one proposing a new law of dangerous cycling.
In commenting on her current proposal she says:
Must have forgotten.0 -
Something I do find really strange about the UK is how riding on the pavement is considered such a no no. People here seem to have more of an issue with someone riding on a pavement (regardless of how slow/fast/considerate) than they do if their mate drives off in a car after drinking an extra pint of beer. Both are illegal under the highway code but one of them is a very real killer.
Many other countries have no issues with cycling across a pavement including some that have far greater numbers of cyclists than here so law of averages would say it has to be more dangerous to their pedestrians. Why is it that these countries can have cyclists and pedestrians both sharing the same space without issues while here in the UK people tend get so upset.
I don't condone what has happened in this tragic incident but changing the law doesn't seem like the answer to me. Just because the law is there to send a lorry driver to jail for killing a cyclist doesn't mean that is the sentence that gets passed. If there is a change of law required then it should be a stiffer penalty for those cycling "dangerously" on a pavement and no law for those who are using a pavement, sometimes out of necessity, but in a manner that is considerate and not dangerous.0 -
What a complete croque-of-sh:t. The thing that really gets my goat is the biased vilification of the cyclist by the media and the politician.
Its right that the cyclist should have been fined and taken some blame because he could have slowed down - BUT, if I understand this correctly, this all came about because the under age girls were drunk and playing chicken with the cyclist.
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/cyclist-fined-after-collision-death-17458?CPN=RSS&SOURCE=BRROADNEWS
Ask yourself what if the collision had killed the cyclist? A: no news coverage
Or what would you do if a group of chavs are trying to block you? A: ride at them
The whole thing is a tragic accident and I can't see why the law needs changing whatsoever. Complete waste of parliament's time!0 -
sfichele wrote:Ask yourself what if the collision had killed the cyclist? A: no news coverage
Or what would you do if a group of chavs are trying to block you? A: ride at them
AndyManc, is that you?0 -
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.
He was prosecuted for dangerous cycling.
On the same day that the cyclist was convicted and fined; a lorry-driver who killed a cyclist was convicted of careless driving and fined about £350. Certainly the differences in the way drivers and cyclists are treated needs to be addressed.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
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.
He wasn't riding on the pavement, he was riding quite legally on the road. The 17 year old girl was part of a group of teenagers who had been drinking and were crossing the road in the path of the cyclist who simply took insufficient care to avoid hitting her. She fell and banged her head as people who have been drinking tend to do even in the absence of bicycles. (60% of serious head injuries are alcohol-related.) With a good lawyer he'd probably got off. If he'd been driving a car and hit a drunk girl staggering about in the road then there'd have been no prosecution.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
dondare wrote:He wasn't riding on the pavement, he was riding quite legally on the road.
Interesting. The sources I have seen (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7496757.stm and http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/07/08/speeding-cyclist-killed-teenage-girl-on-pavement-after-refusing-to-swerve-115875-20635650/) suggest the incident occured on the pavement.. I'm aware that journalism isn't always as thorough as it might - what makes you think the situation was as you have reported? If the reports of "Move out of my way, I'm not stopping" are true then the evidence appears pretty damning even if wasn't on the pavement.Nobody told me we had a communication problem0 -
I followed this at the time and noticed how the newspapers changed their account as the trial progressed and the unfolding facts didn't match up with their original assumptions about cyclists always riding on the pavement through red traffic lights.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds ... 496757.stm
The photo shows him riding on the road.
As for the shouted warning, a motorist would have used the horn to give the same message: and probably escaped prosecution.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
I'm not excusing the cyclist. He should have waited for the pedestrians to cross safely.This post contains traces of nuts.0
-
dondare wrote:The photo shows him riding on the road.
True, but presumably this is a cctv still taken some time prior to the incident. Reports are that he mounted the pavement to 'cut a corner' before the accident.dondare wrote:As for the shouted warning, a motorist would have used the horn to give the same message: and probably escaped prosecution.
Are you saying that a judicious blast of an airzound would have made this behaviour acceptable?Nobody told me we had a communication problem0 -
Two cyclists were killed on London's roads yesterday but the MP here is flagging this as an issue. I agree with the notion we should be as accountable as other road users but I think she needs some sense of perspective here. Far more people are killed by 'accidental suffication in bed' let's bring in a laws to control pillows?0
-
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.
Motor vehicles are one of the world's top causes of premature death. Cycling is not.
You might as well have a 'dangerous jogging' law.
The cyclist was given a 11x stiffer sentence than this road killer http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... -driver.do0 -
walkingbootweather wrote:dondare wrote:The photo shows him riding on the road.
True, but presumably this is a cctv still taken some time prior to the incident. Reports are that he mounted the pavement to 'cut a corner' before the accident.dondare wrote:As for the shouted warning, a motorist would have used the horn to give the same message: and probably escaped prosecution.
Are you saying that a judicious blast of an airzound would have made this behaviour acceptable?
No, I'm saying that cyclists are treated worse by both the media and the courts than are motorists. He should have made sure that they'd crossed safely. But a motorist who knocks over a drunk teenager in the road is unlikely to be charged with causing death by dangerous driving.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
The prosecution had the option of charging with manslaughter, which they didn't pursue. Quite simply the law doesn't need changing !!!
The cyclist definitely messed up there's no doubt of that. But the whole thing is shrouded by bad reporting, incoherent facts of whether he was riding on the pavement and a vilification of any cyclist that has an expensive, custom, high end bike. If you google the coverage you are hard pushed to find anything about the girls behaviour, or the real real issue here which is alcohol fuelled lads and ladetts. Instead the media accuses all cyclists of being RLJs and practically being the equivalent of boys racers with their high end, expensive bikes.0 -
...cyclist definitely messed up..... .....girl was drunk.....
What we really need is a process to review all of the available facts and evidence about the situation, consider them carefully, and present them to some sort of impartial panel who can then make a fully informed decision about what actually happened. Rather than speculating based on whatever information the press choose to print when they're reporting on how bad the girl's parents must feel about this.
Oh, hold on.....0 -
It'd never catch onrhext wrote:...cyclist definitely messed up..... .....girl was drunk.....
What we really need is a process to review all of the available facts and evidence about the situation, consider them carefully, and present them to some sort of impartial panel who can then make a fully informed decision about what actually happened. Rather than speculating based on whatever information the press choose to print when they're reporting on how bad the girl's parents must feel about this.
Oh, hold on.....0 -
@rhextWhat we really need is a process to review all of the available facts and evidence about the situation, consider them carefully, and present them to some sort of impartial panel who can then make a fully informed decision about what actually happened. Rather than speculating based on whatever information the press choose to print when they're reporting on how bad the girl's parents must feel about this.
Oh, hold on.....
Sure I'm ranting, and I could do with more facts about the incident BUT
the court (hopefully having the facts) decided to fine the the guy rather than pursue manslaughter. The press have completely vilified the cyclist and practically all other cyclists before and after the court decision, and have presented a very one-sided story of the whole ordeal, with significant variations in facts and details and very little mention or the reckless behaviour of the girls.0 -
I agree! I also agree that the law probably doesn't need changing!
I just don't think you can build a strong case for these positions by speculating about what actually happened. All I can tell is that the information presented in the newspapers doesn't really do it for me either!0 -
thelawnet wrote: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.
Motor vehicles are one of the world's top causes of premature death. Cycling is not.
You might as well have a 'dangerous jogging' law.
The cyclist was given a 11x stiffer sentence than this road killer http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... -driver.do
Completely non comparable. To try and link the two is just sensationalism.
In the case of the lorry driver, he was not heading towards the cyclist shouting "get out of my way, I am not stopping". He was not charged with causing any death, presumable as there were witnesses, so branding him a "road killer" is pretty poor. Do you write for the Daily Mail?"Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
sfichele wrote:
the court (hopefully having the facts) decided to fine the the guy rather than pursue manslaughter.
err no. The CPS decide to not to prosecute manslaughter instead optting for dangerous cycling. The court then found the accused guilty of said fact. AFAIK The court were never asked if the accused was or was not guilty of manslaughter.
Reading what little "fact" there is in the media it would appear that there was conflicting evidence at the trial regarding if he mounted the pavement or not. I expect is a large reason why the fine was what it was although you would need to read the judges summing up to be certain. Even if the this law was passed and Death by Dangerous cycling was a chargable offence, the matter of this conflicting evidence would still be there and would still have bearing on sentancing.
i would also expect the girls behavour and that of her friends would have been brought up in court by the defence lawyer. You cannot draw any conclusion from the fact it's not in the media reports.
A court transcript would be nice to read as it would show up the full picture or what happend at court. Off to google.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Post link if you find it. I'd love to see the real story!0
-
Me tooPost link if you find it. I'd love to see the real story!0 -
No luck finding it so far. Case was in aylesbury corn court but that as far as I've got.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Wallace1492 wrote:thelawnet wrote: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.
Motor vehicles are one of the world's top causes of premature death. Cycling is not.
You might as well have a 'dangerous jogging' law.
The cyclist was given a 11x stiffer sentence than this road killer http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... -driver.do
Completely non comparable. To try and link the two is just sensationalism.
In the case of the lorry driver, he was not heading towards the cyclist shouting "get out of my way, I am not stopping". He was not charged with causing any death, presumable as there were witnesses, so branding him a "road killer" is pretty poor. Do you write for the Daily Mail?
What's your point? The cyclist didn't intend to kill the pedestrian but did. The driver didn't intend to kill the cyclist but did.
I can present a different example if you like:
http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article ... -fined-300
"A lorry driver who ran over and killed a cyclist who was a writer and jewellery designer was today fined £300 after admitting careless driving.
The court had been told that Thorn had been looking for some papers in his cabin when the bike was beside him and also when his vehicle began to turn left and the fatal crash occured."
A lorry/HGV is an instrument of mass death/destruction. A bicycle is not.
If you drive while not paying full attention to your vehicle you do so in the knowledge that you are wielding a deadly weapon.0 -
Shame the court transcript can't be unearthed. The story is discussed in some detail on another forum. There is lots of speculation and suggestions that the incident was mis-reported and this may not have been a simple case of a reckless cyclist wilfully running into an innocent bystander. . My apologies to dondare who was making similar points – I must learn to not automatically believe everything I read.
Presumably the prosecutor would have considered evidence when deciding which charge to pursue, and the court will have made judgement on facts rather than speculation.
Either way I can’t see the case for introducing new legislation.Nobody told me we had a communication problem0
