Death By Dangerous Cycling - New Laws

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Seems funny to me that almost all of the posters who think it is such a good idea all give examples of cyclist putting themselves in danger, which has no relevance to this law at all. 

 

There was already a perfectly serviceable law relating to involuntary killing under Manslaughter. It was necessary to bring in a separate charge of Death by Dangerous driving for motorists since juries had a reluctance to convict them of Manslaughter ('there but for the grace of god' being the Juries view), judging by the general tone here I don't suppose there would be any similar reluctance to convict cyclists of Manslaughter under the appropriate circumstances. All this new act is, is a manifestation of the 'something must be done' mentality so that someone can claim to have 'cured' a problem that barely existed. The accounts of near misses aren't really that relevant; whilst walking on the lanes near where I am currently moored I have had two near misses of vehicles coming along the lanes too fast to be able to see me until the last minute, nothing actually happened and I'm still here. If we legislate for near misses we all need to stay in bed (except that most people die there).

[Momac]

As the wife and I were walking along the pavement  woman cycled past us on Saturday morning. 

The odd thing was she chose to cycle on the right side of the road. She then continued through across a cross roads junction without stopping.  The traffic lights were on red , against her.

Amazingly no traffic was crossing the junction at the same time although a car did turn right  through the junction towards the cyclist and had to go across the central line to miss her.

It seems to me there are many cyclists using the roads with no idea what they are doing. Perhaps a basic  cycling proficiency test like we did at primary school should be re-introduced.

 

 

[nbfiresprite]

29 minutes ago, MJG said:

Cycling on the public highway should be banned.

 

They are a bloody nuisance.

 

Cycleways only for them that insist on riding a bike and a jail term if they don't wear a helmet.

 

End of.

Cycles have been legally define as carriages of the highway and have done since 1879 (as a consequence of the Taylor v Goodwin judgment in 1879) ( Section 85 Local Government Act 1988).  Motor cars were classed as carriages in the 1903 Motor Car Act; bicycles were so classified in 1888.

Edited August 12, 2018 by nbfiresprite

[Jerra]

3 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

Cycles have been legally define as carriages of the highway and have done since 1879 (as a consequence of the Taylor v Goodwin judgment in 1879) ( Sectiopn 85 Local Government Act 1988).  Motor cars were classed as carriages in the 1903 Motor Car Act; bicycles were so classified in 1888.

I must be being more than usually thick tonight.  It seems as I read the above bikes were defined as carriages in 1879 and then again in 1888.

 

What am I missing.

[Cheshire cat]

So what you are saying is motorists are the cuckoos in the nest. 

 

As a cyclist I don't have a problem with the new legislation. It is targeting the idiots of which I am not one. Whether it has any effect at all we shall have to wait and see. There are a proportion of cyclists and motorists who simply believe they are above the law and so will carry on as normal. Chances of being caught? Nil.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

17 minutes ago, MJG said:

Cycling Caravanning on the public highway country lanes should be banned.

 

They are a bloody nuisance.

 

Cycleways only for them that insist on riding a bike and a jail term if they don't wear a helmet.

 

End of.

You need to read the work of Dr Mayer Hillman (https://mayerhillman.com/1992/06/01/the-cycle-helmet-friend-or-foe/   ) concerning cycle helemets, they offer a false sense of security. The design impact of them is about 12mph which is what your head will hit the ground at if you fall over sideways without bracing yourself, not that much use when falling off a cycle at 20mph are they? If I come off a bike and land directly on my head the likelihood is that I will also break my neck, I'd rather die in the accident than live the rest of my life as a paraplegic. I have however come of the bike on a few occasions and have never got even close to landing on my head. They are ideal for children learning to ride since falling over sideways getting on or getting off their cycle is the most likely accident they are likely to have, if they are hit by a car doing 30mph they aren't going to do anything useful.

 

It's possible you may not appreciate the amendment I've made, but it carries the same logic as your cycling comment.

 

[nbfiresprite]

2 hours ago, pete.i said:

Excellent news. This is a small step towards taming extremely dangerous bikers. Now lets have compulsory insurance and road tax for bikers.

No such thing as Road Tax. It is Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) Which is based on CO2 EMISSIONS per kilometer.  Rate of duty will be calculated based on the vehicle’s CO2 emissions not the driver. The bottom rate is zero.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, nbfiresprite said:

The bottom rate is zero.

Talking of 'bottom-rate' maybe Cyclists could be VED'd on 'methane' rather than CO2

As it happens there is already legislation in place that was used just last year to prosecute a cyclist :

 

THE case where a cyclist has been found guilty of causing bodily harm by 'wanton or furious driving' yesterday, has raised further questions about pedestrian safety and the responsibility of cyclists in public places.

Mrs Briggs' family said they plan to campaign for tougher cycling laws to protect pedestrians. He said: "Out of this senseless carnage, I shall try to bring change to the law and change to attitudes. Perhaps in this way I can honour my wife."

Cycling furiously along the towpath

Cyclists need to remember this law whilst they are cycling furiously along the towpath. If they injure a pedestrian by 'wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct' with the result of causing 'any bodily harm to any person whatsoever' could mean they end up in prison for up to two years or having to fork out a hefty fine or both.

As can be seen, they would not need to kill anyone to be prosecuted, any bodily harm to any person whatsoever is sufficient for a prosecution and the law does not state that they have to be on a public road or footpath either so towpaths and private property are also covered.

Provide evidence

We boaters, as towpath users, need to be aware of this law and take measures to provide the police and other authorities with the evidence of cyclists who persist in riding in a wanton or furious manner or racing along the towpaths in order to get them stopped and/or prosecuted. Remember, speed trials are a form of racing and therefore fall within the remit of this law.

Also, I feel CaRT and local councils need to become aware that they could also, by not attempting to prevent furious riding or racing in any form by cyclists, become liable for a failure in their duty of care responsibilities.

CaRT could end up with a fine

If CaRT and local councils continue to upgrade all the towpaths to knowingly allow cyclists to race or ride furiously without including any other restrictions, i.e. speed humps, gates or even just a blanket speed limit to restrict cyclists then I feel that before long they could end up with a very hefty fine and a court order to implement measures of prevention.

Remember, aiding and abetting an offence is treated by the courts in just the same manner as actually committing the offence under British law.

Cyclists only one user of the towpaths

We pedestrians have the law on our side, we must put a stop to irresponsible and ignorant cyclists who insist that they have the right of way over everybody and anybody on any road, path, track or byway. Cyclists need to be made aware that they are only one user of the byways and that they are required to give way to others. On towpaths, the rules actually state that cyclists should give way to pedestrians.

Why do cyclists assume that all pedestrians are going to jump out of their way. Why should pedestrians have to step off the path into the mud and puddles just to let a speeding cyclist go past without even slowing down. What happens if the pedestrian is deaf and cannot hear the cyclist approaching from behind?

Not even need come in contact

This law, as it is, does not even need the cyclist to come in contact with the pedestrian for an offence to be committed as it states '...do or cause to be done any bodily harm...'.

It appears from this that a cyclist could be liable if, by their action, they just make a pedestrian fall over and injure themselves. Therefore any action by a cyclist that causes bodily harm in any way could constitute an offence under this law.

Not above the law

Cyclist need to be shown that they are not above the law and that other people, other byway users, also have rights and even have a right of way over cyclists in many cases.

One thing that needs urgent attention is the identification of cyclists to prevent them from just getting up and riding off after an accident without leaving any trace of who they are. Registration of all adult cyclists and a registration plate fixed to their bike is an urgent and long overdue legal need.

The law under which the cyclist was charged...

 'Offences Against the Person Act 1861'. This law is the closest to dangerous driving a cyclist can be charged with, and states

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

[nbfiresprite]

16 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I must be being more than usually thick tonight.  It seems as I read the above bikes were defined as carriages in 1879 and then again in 1888.

 

What am I missing.

In 1878, the year when the CTC was founded, the case of Taylor v. Goodwin was pivotal. Mr. Justice Mellor and Mr. Justice Lush, sitting in banco in the Queen’s Bench Division, Cyclists were liable to the pains and penalties imposed by the 1835 Highway Act.

The case had been brought against a Mr Taylor who had been charged for “riding furiously” down Muswell Hill in London, knocking down a pedestrian in the process. His defence argued that as a bicycle wasn’t defined as a carriage in the 1835 Act there was no case to answer. The plea was disregarded and Taylor was fined. The case was appealed and justices Mellor and Lush ruled that bicycles were henceforth to be considered carriages under the law (Case Law).

 

Section 85  Local Government Act 1988 defined it in law.  This act is also known as the “Magna Carta de Bicyclis.”

 

 

Edited August 12, 2018 by nbfiresprite

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, nbfiresprite said:

In 1878, the year when the CTC was founded, the case of Taylor v. Goodwin was pivotal. Mr. Justice Mellor and Mr. Justice Lush, sitting in banco in the Queen’s Bench Division, Cyclists were liable to the pains and penalties imposed by the 1835 Highway Act.

The case had been brought against a Mr Taylor who had been charged for “riding furiously” down Muswell Hill in London, knocking down a pedestrian in the process. His defence argued that as a bicycle wasn’t defined as a carriage in the 1835 Act there was no case to answer. The plea was disregarded and Taylor was fined. The case was appealed and justices Mellor and Lush ruled that bicycles were henceforth to be considered carriages under the law (Case Law).

 

Section 85  Local Government Act 1988 defined it in law.  This act is also known as the “Magna Carta de Bicyclis.”

 

 

Thank you for the clarification.

[nbfiresprite]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Talking of 'bottom-rate' maybe Cyclists could be VED'd on 'methane' rather than CO2

Why not go after Vegan car drivers they are after all trhe bigist produces of methane they never stop farting.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

You need to read the work of Dr Mayer Hillman (https://mayerhillman.com/1992/06/01/the-cycle-helmet-friend-or-foe/   ) concerning cycle helemets, they offer a false sense of security. The design impact of them is about 12mph which is what your head will hit the ground at if you fall over sideways without bracing yourself, not that much use when falling off a cycle at 20mph are they? If I come off a bike and land directly on my head the likelihood is that I will also break my neck, I'd rather die in the accident than live the rest of my life as a paraplegic. I have however come of the bike on a few occasions and have never got even close to landing on my head. They are ideal for children learning to ride since falling over sideways getting on or getting off their cycle is the most likely accident they are likely to have, if they are hit by a car doing 30mph they aren't going to do anything useful.

 

It's possible you may not appreciate the amendment I've made, but it carries the same logic as your cycling comment.

 

Oh dear me the 'false sense of security' argument emerges yet again.

 

Christ on a bike,    (oh did you see what I did there)

 

Let's ban, air bags, seat belts, abs, traction control blah blah blah.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

Why not go after Vegan car drivers they are after all trhe bigist produces of methane they never stop farting.

Vegans, & others with like minded tree-hugging habits, probably make up a high percentage of cyclists, it would be unfair to tax them twice.

 

That's as ridiculous as being taxed on your income and then taxed on what you save, taxed on it when you spend it, then taxed on it again when you die.

[dor]

22 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

You need to read the work of Dr Mayer Hillman (https://mayerhillman.com/1992/06/01/the-cycle-helmet-friend-or-foe/   ) concerning cycle helemets, they offer a false sense of security. The design impact of them is about 12mph which is what your head will hit the ground at if you fall over sideways without bracing yourself, not that much use when falling off a cycle at 20mph are they? If I come off a bike and land directly on my head the likelihood is that I will also break my neck, I'd rather die in the accident than live the rest of my life as a paraplegic. I have however come of the bike on a few occasions and have never got even close to landing on my head. They are ideal for children learning to ride since falling over sideways getting on or getting off their cycle is the most likely accident they are likely to have, if they are hit by a car doing 30mph they aren't going to do anything useful.

 

It's possible you may not appreciate the amendment I've made, but it carries the same logic as your cycling comment.

 

I agree with much of what you say.  People are notoriously bad at relative risk assessment.

However a few winters ago my wife was setting off on her bike and lost it at the bottom of the road on some ice.  She slid at a moderate pace, being stopped when her helmeted head hit the kerb.  She was not seriously worse off for the the incident, but was sure that if she had not been wearing a helmet she would possibly have suffered a significant head injury.  There are always incidents which could have had different outcomes.  Do you remember when seat belt laws came in and people argued that they were safer being able to be thrown clear?  I don't think anyone would argue against the benefit of seat belts today.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 minute ago, MJG said:

Oh dear me the 'false sense of security' argument emerges yet again.

 

Christ on a bike,    (oh did you see what I did there)

 

Let's ban, air bags, seat belts, abs, traction control blah blah blah.

You clearly didn't bother to read the work of Dr Hillman then. Air bags, seat belt etc,etc, do have a safety element (although they also cause people to drive more carelesslessly than if they weren't present) a helmet that is going to protect your head if you fall over is largely useless when you are hit by a 1/2 ton car. Pretending otherwise matches the definition of a 'false sense of security'.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

You clearly didn't bother to read the work of Dr Hillman then. Air bags, seat belt etc,etc, do have a safety element (although they also cause people to drive more carelesslessly than if they weren't present) a helmet that is going to protect your head if you fall over is largely useless when you are hit by a 1/2 ton car. Pretending otherwise matches the definition of a 'false sense of security'.

No I didn't, because unlike you I've cared for people eating their evening meal through a straw because they didn't wear one.

 

And as to your noddy comments about being a nuisance on a country lane in a caravan you really should bone up on legal limits versus safe limits. Fyi I can maintain a safe limit.

 

Are you really an ex copper because if you were you would know the difference.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 minute ago, MJG said:

No I didn't, because unlike you I've cared for people eating their evening meal through a straw because they didn't wear one.

 

And as to your noddy comments about being a nuisance on a country lane in a caravan you really should bone up on legal limits versus safe limits. Fyi I can maintain a safe limit.

 

Are you really an ex copper because if you were you would know the difference.

Which will be about half the safe limit of anyone else on the road not towing (probably including cyclists), so you are, in reality, an obstruction.

[Guest]

Just now, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Which will be about half the safe limit of anyone else on the road not towing (probably including cyclists), so you are, in reality, an obstruction.

Can you please provide some evidence of this please, you normally seem to pride yourself in doing so but now seem to have defaulted to b.s. anecdote.

[nbfiresprite]

15 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Vegans, & others with like minded tree-hugging habits, probably make up a high percentage of cyclists, it would be unfair to tax them twice.

 

I have yet to meet a vegan cyclist, All the vegan's I know drive.

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

I have yet to meet a vegan cyclist, All the vegan's I know drive.

Try joining the Vegan Cyclists Club, or joining one of the many facebook groups

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/vegancyclistsuk/

 

http://www.vegancyclist.co.uk/

 

https://vegetariancac.org/

[Wanderer Vagabond]

17 minutes ago, MJG said:

Can you please provide some evidence of this please, you normally seem to pride yourself in doing so but now seem to have defaulted to b.s. anecdote.

So tell me,whilst towing your caravan, do you stop in exactly the same distance in an emergency that you would whilst not towing? (even assuming that your caravan is a braked trailer). Not anecdotal, simply physics. There is also the assumption when a caravanner meets another vehicle coming in the opposite direction on a country lane it is going to be the other vehicle that is going to reverse.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Wanderer Vagabond

[TheBiscuits]

32 minutes ago, MJG said:

Let's ban, air bags, seat belts, abs, traction control blah blah blah.

We should.

 

If all car drivers sat in a glass bubble on the front bumper of their car, the accident rate would drop by about 99%.

 

People would drive at safer speeds and wouldn't tailgate, purely *because* they would feel far more vulnerable.

[Guest]

Just now, Wanderer Vagabond said:

So tell me,whilst towing your caravan, do you stop in exactly the same distance in an emergency that you would whilst not towing? (even assuming that your caravan is a braked trailer). Not anecdotal, simply physics.

Now you are getting desperate. You were talking about me being an obstruction last post now we are talking braking distance. Make your mind up please.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

We should.

 

If all car drivers sat in a glass bubble on the front bumper of their car, the accident rate would drop by about 99%.

 

People would drive at safer speeds and wouldn't tailgate, purely *because* they would feel far more vulnerable.

This has already been thought of ( http://www.patrol-log.com/2017/01/25/would-putting-a-spike-in-the-steering-wheel-make-driving-safer-for-everyone/  ) light heartedly

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

We should.

 

If all car drivers sat in a glass bubble on the front bumper of their car, the accident rate would drop by about 99%.

 

People would drive at safer speeds and wouldn't tailgate, purely *because* they would feel far more vulnerable.

You forgot the spike in the centre of the steering wheel which normally comes up in these ludicrous  discussions.