Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by IvanV » Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:51 am

Gfamily wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:59 am
When I was frequenting usergroups for cyclists about 15-20 years ago, there were reports of cyclists being given FPNs for exceeding the speed limits in Royal Parks. These were cyclists, on the roads, that were exceeding the general 20mph limit (rather than any specific limit for cyclists).
There is specific legislation for highways in Royal Parks, and (as far as I can tell), the FPNs were issued because in those acts, the definitions don't make the same distinction between motorised and mechanical vehicles that are explicit in the general road traffic acts (which exclude cyclists from general RTA speed limits legislation).

My personal suspicion is that the law was probably mis-applied (maybe mis-drafted), but I don't think anyone was ready to take it to appeal.
In the Hyde Park case, it's probably the case that the legislation did not give scope for specific limits on cycleways as opposed to highways, hence no legal force.
That matches my understanding.

User avatar
Trinucleus
Catbabel
Posts: 985
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:45 pm

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by Trinucleus » Wed Aug 17, 2022 12:46 pm

Intersting to hear how a number plate scheme for a few 000,000 cyclists fit with the 91,000 reduction in civil servant numbers

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by IvanV » Wed Aug 17, 2022 1:15 pm

Trinucleus wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 12:46 pm
Intersting to hear how a number plate scheme for a few 000,000 cyclists fit with the 91,000 reduction in civil servant numbers
Doubtless they'll outsource the registry to Crapita or one of their ilk to make a complete Kafkaesque bureaucratic balls-up of, to piss off the hated bicycle users as much as possible, just like they did with disability payments.

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by monkey » Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:06 pm

I have a bicycle number plate. It came off of a vintage bike I used to have. I know it came from Baton Rouge, because that's what it says on it. I do not know exactly how old it is, but you don't need one now.

Number plates are a silly idea that crops up every so often. Every time, just about everyone goes "that's a silly idea" and it's forgotten about till next time. I think North Korea is the only place that do it, but they also banned women from cycling.

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by Sciolus » Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:27 pm

Many residential areas these days have 20 mph speed limits. This is a Good Thing. It is entirely appropriate that these speed limits should apply to cyclists too. Not least because very few cyclists could do an emergency stop safely at anywhere near that speed.

However, mandating a quantitative speed limit rather implies mandating speedometers, something that few bikes have (unless you want riders gawping at the GPS on their phones). And presumably these would need recertifying every year. It all starts to get a bit onerous.

I'm not sure where and how you would mount a number place on a bicycle, given the huge diversity of designs. Maybe we will need type approval before a new model of cycle can be sold, to ensure it has a suitable mounting place? It will also need to be mounted safely; motorbikes don't need plates at the front any more, because when they were mandatory, they were usually mounted sideways, which tended to slice into people in the event of a collision.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that taking a regulatory system designed for motor vehicles and applying it to a very different form of transport is not very workable. Certainly some reform of regulation would be helpful, and we really need to rationalise the whole mess of rules for low-speed mechanical transport. But it makes much more sense to keep the rules largely qualitative and based on a reasonableness test. By all means have a law against using LSMT in a way that is likely to cause injury or death, and a law against using LSMT in a way that is likely to intimidate or alarm other people. But let's make them part of a hierarchy of responsibility, based on vulnerability and power. But doing all this properly will be technically difficult and politically extremely difficult.

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by monkey » Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:52 pm

Here's a picture of the bike with the plate on it. It's on the seat stays. This would not be possible on all bikes.
bike_plate.jpg
bike_plate.jpg (395.49 KiB) Viewed 1786 times

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by lpm » Wed Aug 17, 2022 9:56 pm

All this rather ignores the fact that Shapps himself said he didn't think bike registration plates were appropriate.

The Daily Mail & Co ignored that because they wanted a better headline. Believing something written by these tabloid liars, then writing a lengthy rebuttal, is a fundamental mistake.

And of course there'll probably be a new transport minister in 3 weeks.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

Millennie Al
After Pie
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by Millennie Al » Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:13 pm

IvanV wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:22 am
If you see a number in a red circle, that speed limit does apply equally to all vehicles including bicycles.
Really? Under what legislation? The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Section 84 says:
84. Speed limits on roads other than restricted roads.

[F1( 1 )An order made under this subsection as respects any road may prohibit—

(a)the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding that specified in the order,

(b)the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding that specified in the order during periods specified in the order, or

(c)the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding the speed for the time being indicated by traffic signs in accordance with the order.
which only covers motor vehicles - not cycles, pedestrians, horses, etc.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by IvanV » Thu Aug 18, 2022 8:46 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:13 pm
IvanV wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:22 am
If you see a number in a red circle, that speed limit does apply equally to all vehicles including bicycles.
Really? Under what legislation? The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Section 84 says:
84. Speed limits on roads other than restricted roads.

[F1( 1 )An order made under this subsection as respects any road may prohibit—

(a)the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding that specified in the order,

(b)the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding that specified in the order during periods specified in the order, or

(c)the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding the speed for the time being indicated by traffic signs in accordance with the order.
which only covers motor vehicles - not cycles, pedestrians, horses, etc.
You are right. I convinced myself some time ago that explicit speed limits in red circles applied, but I don't know how as it is quite clearly false. Maybe I mixed it up with the Royal Parks case, where they do apply.

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by Sciolus » Thu Aug 18, 2022 7:07 pm

lpm wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 9:56 pm
All this rather ignores the fact that Shapps himself said he didn't think bike registration plates were appropriate.

The Daily Mail & Co ignored that because they wanted a better headline. Believing something written by these tabloid liars, then writing a lengthy rebuttal, is a fundamental mistake.

And of course there'll probably be a new transport minister in 3 weeks.
No, you've missed the point. Transport secretaries come and go, the Mail is forever. Laws are irrelevant*, it's public attitudes that matter.

*Except as a cycling suppression measure, motivated by anti-cycling public attitudes.

philbo
Clardic Fug
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:06 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by philbo » Sun Aug 21, 2022 10:50 pm

Millennie Al wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:13 pm
IvanV wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:22 am
If you see a number in a red circle, that speed limit does apply equally to all vehicles including bicycles.
Really? Under what legislation? The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Section 84 says:
84. Speed limits on roads other than restricted roads.

[F1( 1 )An order made under this subsection as respects any road may prohibit—

(a)the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding that specified in the order,

(b)the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding that specified in the order during periods specified in the order, or

(c)the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding the speed for the time being indicated by traffic signs in accordance with the order.
which only covers motor vehicles - not cycles, pedestrians, horses, etc.
I wonder if the police officers who stopped me for speeding* while on a bicycle were aware of that.. to be fair, speeding on a bicycle is a lot easier in High Wycombe than most other places, but asking "so why didn't you stop any of the cars who overtook me?" seemed to take the wind out of their sails a bit.

I've long been of the opinion that they only stopped me so they had something to talk about in the pub later that evening


*36mph in a 30 zone.. tbf, I was taking it easy that evening.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by jimbob » Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:22 am

philbo wrote:
Sun Aug 21, 2022 10:50 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:13 pm
IvanV wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:22 am
If you see a number in a red circle, that speed limit does apply equally to all vehicles including bicycles.
Really? Under what legislation? The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Section 84 says:
84. Speed limits on roads other than restricted roads.

[F1( 1 )An order made under this subsection as respects any road may prohibit—

(a)the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding that specified in the order,

(b)the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding that specified in the order during periods specified in the order, or

(c)the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding the speed for the time being indicated by traffic signs in accordance with the order.
which only covers motor vehicles - not cycles, pedestrians, horses, etc.
I wonder if the police officers who stopped me for speeding* while on a bicycle were aware of that.. to be fair, speeding on a bicycle is a lot easier in High Wycombe than most other places, but asking "so why didn't you stop any of the cars who overtook me?" seemed to take the wind out of their sails a bit.

I've long been of the opinion that they only stopped me so they had something to talk about in the pub later that evening


*36mph in a 30 zone.. tbf, I was taking it easy that evening.
There is "peddling furiously" which is nicely subjective.

But it's a nice example of a culture war story that will appeal to a lot of the Tory party members
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Opti
Dorkwood
Posts: 1473
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:21 pm
Location: On the beach

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by Opti » Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:25 am

See my first post on this thread. First response to the OP.

Opti wrote:
Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:13 am
MOAR culture war.
Time for a big fat one.

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by Gfamily » Mon Aug 22, 2022 10:58 am

Interesting that the police seem to acknowledge that Royal Parks legislation doesn't apply speed limits to cyclists, but will enforce them anyway.

https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-r ... ing-295361
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by IvanV » Mon Aug 22, 2022 11:43 am

jimbob wrote:
Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:22 am
There is "peddling furiously" which is nicely subjective.
One of those traditional misquotes. It's actually "wanton or furious driving", and occurs in S35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It is often misunderstood as a "speeding offence". But actually it is a "causing injury" offence.
35 Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving.

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 misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years
In a sense, it is more progressive than the modern motoring laws, for two reasons. First, because those have only "causing death..." and "causing serious injury..." offences - and when it says "serious" it generally means "life-changing", ie very serious. Whereas the "wanton or furious driving" offence applies when any kind of bodily harm is caused. Second, because it refers to "wilful misconduct" and "wilful neglect". In other words, negligence. Which is a more sensible test of whether the driver should be prosecuted than the vague notions of "dangerous driving" and "careless driving". And 2 years is a pretty sensible maximum sentence, given the limited harm to third parties that occurs in all but a handful of cases of negligent cycling.

We laugh at it. But actually it is more sensible piece of legislation than modern ones.

The actual "furious pedalling" offences, ie bad cycling without need for damage to have occurred, turn up in the Road Traffic Act 1988, though with boring modern wording. I show the version as amended by subsequent legislation.
28 Dangerous cycling.
(1)A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.
(3)In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.

30 Cycling when under influence of drink or drugs
(1)A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.
(2)In Scotland a constable may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under this section.
What more do we need? All of dangerous, careless and inconsiderate cycling, and cycling under the influence of drink and drugs are already illegal. And to satisfy the culture warriors, they are made illegal with parallel wordings to the (stupid) wordings in motor vehicle legislation (that make that legislation so ineffective). Moreover they were not in the original 1988 Act and have been subsequently introduced. I'm referring in particular to S28(2), which was introduced later. (And the unfortunate wordings are things like "what would be expected" and "competent and careful", which juries frequently use to excuse negligent driving.)

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by Sciolus » Mon Aug 22, 2022 7:30 pm

Gfamily wrote:
Mon Aug 22, 2022 10:58 am
Interesting that the police seem to acknowledge that Royal Parks legislation doesn't apply speed limits to cyclists, but will enforce them anyway.

https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-r ... ing-295361
That's not exactly what the link says.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by IvanV » Tue Aug 23, 2022 3:03 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Mon Aug 22, 2022 7:30 pm
Gfamily wrote:
Mon Aug 22, 2022 10:58 am
Interesting that the police seem to acknowledge that Royal Parks legislation doesn't apply speed limits to cyclists, but will enforce them anyway.

https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-r ... ing-295361
That's not exactly what the link says.
So in fact not even the speed limits in red circles in Royal Parks apply to cyclists either. I was wrong about that one as well. Though, according to that article, that has only just recently been admitted by the Royal Parks.

Post Reply