Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

[IvanV]

Grant Shapps said a couple of days ago that he desires to introduce the "death by dangerous cycling" offence that the government previously proposed and had a consultation on now 4 years ago. The consultation page still says, 4 years later, "Visit this page again soon to download the outcome to this public feedback."

It was introduced when Jesse Norman was a junior transport minister, and I saw him talking on the telly about it, looking very embarrassed as he did so. That is because it was a typical piece of appeal-to-the-bigots that is the main kind of policy this government knows how to do, in this case bicycle bigots. And Norman is a cycling enthusiast, not a hater. So he must have really felt he was doing his duty to his master to introduce this one.

I always presumed we never heard any more of it, because the responses to the consultation would have been hugely anti, at least the cogent ones. I wrote a very lengthy response to the consultation myself, and Cycling UK shared their response with me. We independently came up with the same main points. No one would say that that the present 19th century laws which apply when bicycles are ridden dangerously are very clever. But simply taking laws designed for heavy motor vehicles, search and replace with bicycle, is not going to produce a sensible, appropriate, or well calibrated law to apply to dangerously ridden bicycles. And wouldn't it be sensible to have a common approach to all lightweight low-speed objects moving on our roads and footways, not just bicycles?

Generally speaking when a bicycle is in collision with something it might do damage to, be it a pedestrian, a roller skater, etc, it is generally the bicycle rider who comes of worst, as they usually have more continuing momentum in their own body to hit the ground harder than what they hit. It requires a lot of bad luck for that momentum to be mainly transferred to the other party, or an unlucky fall, for the other one to come off worst. That is completely different from the typical motor vehicle accident, where it has so much momentum you don't need to transfer very much of it to to the other party to cause a lot of damage.

[Opti]

MOAR culture war.

[TopBadger]

In which case seems only fair that pedestrians can also be charged with 'Death by Dangerous Pedestrianing'... but I guess that is already the case, given manslaughter is a thing?

Cyclists who have killed pedestrians have to date been charged with Manslaughter. You don't hear about charges the other way around but I see no reason why this couldn't be the case.

Ultimately, collisions happen between road users, and blame is apportioned based on the circumstances, resulting in verdicts of guilt, no? On that basis I've no idea how a new offense actually changes things in terms of justice, it just looks like politics to me... being seen to invent a law to make a crime out of something that is already a crime (unintentionally causing someone else's death).

[Woodchopper]

Ultimately, collisions happen between road users, and blame is apportioned based on the circumstances, resulting in verdicts of guilt, no? On that basis I've no idea how a new offense actually changes things in terms of justice, it just looks like politics to me... being seen to invent a law to make a crime out of something that is already a crime (unintentionally causing someone else's death).

A different offence could change things through there being different penalties and different sentencing guidelines compared to the general offence of manslaughter.

So causing death by dangerous cycling might have, for example, a longer minimum sentence and someone being banned from cycling for a specified period.

[lpm]

The behaviour of some cyclists is shocking.

There definitely needs to be an updated law although whatever the Tories propose won't be it.

Deaths are a red herring due to the extreme rarity. I'd start with something like "intimidation of other road users". That would cover racing through a semi-pedestrianised space, ignoring red lights and zebra crossings, excessive speed through junctions, and downhill racing that forces drivers to take sudden evasive action.

Penalties would be fines and bans, although obviously bans would be impossible to enforce.

[IvanV]

In which case seems only fair that pedestrians can also be charged with 'Death by Dangerous Pedestrianing'... but I guess that is already the case, given manslaughter is a thing?

Cyclists who have killed pedestrians have to date been charged with Manslaughter. You don't hear about charges the other way around but I see no reason why this couldn't be the case.

Ultimately, collisions happen between road users, and blame is apportioned based on the circumstances, resulting in verdicts of guilt, no? On that basis I've no idea how a new offense actually changes things in terms of justice, it just looks like politics to me... being seen to invent a law to make a crime out of something that is already a crime (unintentionally causing someone else's death).

Any kind of damage caused to another road user at the fault of another, so logically a death cased is classic negligence manslaughter. And that is how motorists were originally dealt with in this country. In other countries, vehicular homicide/manslaughter type of thing is common way of dealing with this.

But this was found unsatisfactory in Britain because of the considerable reluctance of courts and juries to convict motorists of manslaughter charges. Doubtless the jurors and indeed judges, observing the defendant to have done things they themselves had regularly done, didn't like to think that might be manslaughter in less lucky circumstances.

So the offences like causing death by dangerous driving, etc, came in. And because they were conceived in a way that still gives jurors too much discretion over what that means, still the same problems applied, and although they convicted more, they still didn't convict "enough". Unusually for British law, it is devised in a way that no precedents are set over what is dangerous or careless driving, the jurors must decide every time on these circumstances, without a catalogue of precedent over what is careless or dangerous driving. The approach of the government to this under-convicting was to bring in a whole panoply of other motoring offences, and of course sentence increases. That has resulted in increased sentences. But it doesn't really amount to a consistent, effective or sensible system of the control of dangerous machine operation in public places.

Dangerous pedestrianising, yes, in principle. But dangerous pedestrianing wouldn't mean punching passers-by in the face as you walked down the street, it would mean walking or running in a public space in a manner that was negligent as to the effect on other users of that way. I don't think much is gained by having such an offence in comparison to ABH etc. But there are all sorts of other machines and objects that get moved around that can more plausibly cause accidents that might be considered in the same way, from e-scooters to pushchairs.

[IvanV]

The behaviour of some cyclists is shocking.

The behaviour of some people is shocking in a wide range of activities, not just driving motor vehicles and riding bicycles, but attending football matches and availing of hospitality services and on beaches and in parks. Indeed just about anything you can think of. The appropriate approach depends upon the level of risk they present and damage they cause. And we also have to think about whether the background activity itself is of much relevance to the likely effect of the misbehaviour.

The shocking behaviour of some people while riding bicycles is often more about those people and their behaviour than the fact that they happen to be riding bicycles at the time. They would likely often have created a similar effect without the bicycles. But when you are driving a car, a 1 tonne object travelling at high speed, the effects of that misbehaviour are much more likely to be about the fact that you were driving a car at the time.

[IvanV]

Any kind of damage caused to another road user at the fault of another, so logically a death cased is classic negligence manslaughter.

I omitted a couple of key words, and am too late to edit. It should say

Any kind of damage caused to another road user at the fault of another is negligence, so logically a death cased is classic negligence manslaughter.

[lpm]

The behaviour of some cyclists is shocking.

The behaviour of some people is shocking in a wide range of activities, not just driving motor vehicles and riding bicycles, but attending football matches and availing of hospitality services and on beaches and in parks. Indeed just about anything you can think of. The appropriate approach depends upon the level of risk they present and damage they cause. And we also have to think about whether the background activity itself is of much relevance to the likely effect of the misbehaviour.

The shocking behaviour of some people while riding bicycles is often more about those people and their behaviour than the fact that they happen to be riding bicycles at the time. They would likely often have created a similar effect without the bicycles. But when you are driving a car, a 1 tonne object travelling at high speed, the effects of that misbehaviour are much more likely to be about the fact that you were driving a car at the time.

That's non stop whataboutery.

Of course a 1 ton car is far more dangerous. But why should that stop us addressing other dangers? And why not try to reduce anti-cyclist rhetoric (and behaviour) by reigning in dangerous and reckless cyclists?

[WFJ]

The behaviour of some cyclists is shocking.

There definitely needs to be an updated law although whatever the Tories propose won't be it.

Deaths are a red herring due to the extreme rarity. I'd start with something like "intimidation of other road users". That would cover racing through a semi-pedestrianised space, ignoring red lights and zebra crossings, excessive speed through junctions, and downhill racing that forces drivers to take sudden evasive action.

Penalties would be fines and bans, although obviously bans would be impossible to enforce.

Skipping red lights and zebra crossings are already offences. As is racing but I assume you're using that colloquially to mean riding fast, however that's defined.

What exactly are excessive speed through junctions and downhill racing? In most built-up areas it'd be pretty rare for cyclists to exceed 30 mph even downhill, except for downhill long stretches with no lights.

Riding too fast in shared spaces might be a problem, but I'm not sure how exactly you could legislate for that short of mandating speedometers on bikes.

[IvanV]

Of course a 1 ton car is far more dangerous. But why should that stop us addressing other dangers? And why not try to reduce anti-cyclist rhetoric (and behaviour) by reigning in dangerous and reckless cyclists?

Of course we should address all such dangers in an proportionate, effective and well-calibrated way. The government's proposal does not do that. Perhaps it would be good if they did.

There is existing legislation that addresses bad cycling, not just manslaughter, but some other old bits of legislation which are occasionally wheeled out and used. And at least they apply to a wider variety of non-motor transport, like carts pulled by livestock too.

I have no power to reign in "dangerous and reckless cyclists" any more than I have powers to reign in "dangerous and reckless motorists" who remain much more common and dangerous than "dangerous and reckless cyclists" despite many years of purpose-written legislation to try and achieve that, but which isn't proportionate, effective and well-calibrated.

It might be a good idea to bring in such proportionate, effective and well-calibrated legislation to deal with low speed/mass vehicles. It would be a much better idea to bring in better legislation to deal with the high mass/speed ones first.

As for those dangerous and reckless cyclists, I tend to suspect many of them are just w.nkers being wankerish and the bicycle is incidental. I saw a documentary on gypsy/travellers presented by a gypsy/traveller some time ago. A little before some w.nker who happened to be a gypsy/traveller caused a lot of trouble down our road. As that presenter said, there are many w.nkers in society, and some of them are gypsy/travellers. What annoys you about them is more likely that they are w.nkers than they are a gypsy/traveller. But many people tend to assume the problem is that they are gypsy/travellers than that they are a w.nkers. It is not a feature of being a gypsy/traveller that you are a w.nker. He had no power to do anything about it and saw no reason, himself as a representative of gypsy/traveller society, to apologise for them any more than any other society representative would apologise for all the other w.nkers in society.

[lpm]

What the f.ck are you on about. What have gypsies to do with cycling?

Why are you opposed to attempting to bring in proportionate, effective and well-calibrated rules for cyclists? Other countries have them. Why not the UK?

[Cardinal Fang]

It I understand correctly the point was

As for those dangerous and reckless cyclists, I tend to suspect many of them are just w.nkers being wankerish and the bicycle is incidental.

There are many w.nkers in society, and some of them are cyclists. What annoys you about them is more likely that they are w.nkers than they are a cyclists. But many people tend to assume the problem is that they are cyclists than that they are a w.nkers. It is not a feature of being a cyclist that you are a w.nker.

Plus punishing cyclists as an entire group because of the actions of a minority of w.nkers in their midst is in itself a w.nker thing to do

CF

[shpalman]

It I understand correctly the point was

As for those dangerous and reckless cyclists, I tend to suspect many of them are just w.nkers being wankerish and the bicycle is incidental.

There are many w.nkers in society, and some of them are cyclists. What annoys you about them is more likely that they are w.nkers than they are a cyclists. But many people tend to assume the problem is that they are cyclists than that they are a w.nkers. It is not a feature of being a cyclist that you are a w.nker.

Plus punishing cyclists as an entire group because of the actions of a minority of w.nkers in their midst is in itself a w.nker thing to do

CF

Punishing cyclists who kill someone as an entire group because only a minority of them killed someone via being a w.nker?

[WFJ]

What the f.ck are you on about. What have gypsies to do with cycling?

Why are you opposed to attempting to bring in proportionate, effective and well-calibrated rules for cyclists? Other countries have them. Why not the UK?

You might like the replies more if you described what offences you would like to introduce. Not including the things you've mentioned that are already offences and vague statements about riding too fast.

[lpm]

No, I'm currently enjoying the morons saying that punishing reckless cyclists is "punishing cyclists as an entire group".

Presumably there were equally stupid people who considered drink-drive laws to be punishing drivers as an entire group.

The whole point is that a modern, appropriate law would help cyclists as a group, while punishing only a tiny minority.

[bjn]

Are new laws actually needed seeing as the offenses being committed are already punishable, or is it just more virtue signalling by snowflake Tories?

[WFJ]

No, I'm currently enjoying the morons saying that punishing reckless cyclists is "punishing cyclists as an entire group".

Presumably there were equally stupid people who considered drink-drive laws to be punishing drivers as an entire group.

The whole point is that a modern, appropriate law would help cyclists as a group, while punishing only a tiny minority.

OK. But unless you give an idea what you think reckless cycling is, beyond startling car drivers by riding too fast downhill, it'll just come across as trolling. You might get further if you add compulsory helmets to the discussion.

[Gfamily]

No, I'm currently enjoying the morons saying that punishing reckless cyclists is "punishing cyclists as an entire group".

Presumably there were equally stupid people who considered drink-drive laws to be punishing drivers as an entire group.

The whole point is that a modern, appropriate law would help cyclists as a group, while punishing only a tiny minority.

OK. But unless you give an idea what you think reckless cycling is, beyond startling car drivers by riding too fast downhill, it'll just come across as trolling. You might get further if you add compulsory helmets to the discussion.

Reckless driving offences were replaced by dangerous driving offences in 1991

[lpm]

Are new laws actually needed seeing as the offenses being committed are already punishable, or is it just more virtue signalling by snowflake Tories?

Anti-cyclist prejudice is widespread for a number of reasons:

- stupid ignorance
- drivers being slowed
- people observing cyclists break rules
- false belief that no laws exist

Replacing archaic law with modern law that's "proportionate, effective and well-calibrated", in Ivan's words, would reduce the prejudice caused by the third and fourth of these.

I'm not claiming it would end close passes, shouted abuse and intimidation from motorists, but it would be a step along the path to reducing it. A modern cycling nation needs more rules for cyclists, as well as more segregated cycle paths and driver education.

As a group, cyclists should be campaigning for updated law. It's always the case that good regulation helps - for example chemical companies are helped by "proportionate, effective and well-calibrated" regulations that prevent polluting cheats from selling cheaper products. We want strong and fair regulation that helps us, while costing reckless w.nkers. Why is there always this knee-jerk reaction from cyclists? Why are they so eager to prevent regulation that would benefit them?

This always happens. The virtue signalling right wingers always win, thanks to the other side refusing to contemplate any moderation or reasoned debate. We should be writing the law, not abdicating the field of battle in our usual purist sulk.

[lpm]

No, I'm currently enjoying the morons saying that punishing reckless cyclists is "punishing cyclists as an entire group".

Presumably there were equally stupid people who considered drink-drive laws to be punishing drivers as an entire group.

The whole point is that a modern, appropriate law would help cyclists as a group, while punishing only a tiny minority.

OK. But unless you give an idea what you think reckless cycling is, beyond startling car drivers by riding too fast downhill, it'll just come across as trolling. You might get further if you add compulsory helmets to the discussion.

Why not just start with the laws from the Netherlands or somewhere, and tinker as necessary? A list of set fines, from using a mobile to cycling drunk.

[WFJ]

Cycling drunk is already an offence in the UK. Apart from using a mobile while cycling, does the Netherlands have any cycling-related offences that the UK is missing?

[lpm]

What's the problem, then, if it just combines all the muddle of archaic fragments into a unified whole? Why all this whining?

[WFJ]

What's the problem, then, if it just combines all the muddle of archaic fragments into a unified whole? Why all this whining?

So your proposal is to combine all existing specific cycling offences into one general offence while adding something new about startling drivers by riding too fast downhill? All very sensible. I'm sure Micheal Green will love it.

[lpm]

I want to see the number of bike journeys double, then double again.

Which means an increase in the number of Ivan's w.nkers, and an increase in motorist hostility unless we do it right.

Unsurprisingly, laws written for horse and carriage driving aren't ideal for a world of cycle lanes, mobiles and complex road junctions.

I'm saying that considerate cycling is going to be essential in a future of crowded cycle lanes, busy bike parking zones and long queues of bikes at junctions. Cycle lanes will be a mix of elderly, children and lycra racers.

It's really disappointing that the noisy elite cyclists are so against mass cycling and the rules that will be necessary to go with it.