Lets hope that like most government reviews this is code for kicked into the long grass.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
cyclist charged with "by wanton or furious driving"
(140 posts)-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
@stickman
"The government is launching a review into whether a new law is needed to tackle dangerous cycling."
This could turn out to be a good thing because it would set standards that can then be turned around and used on drivers.
As for the cyclist who was convicted, IMO it was all about his decision to ride a bike without brakes.
That decision was a decision to endanger others.
Take that out of the story and I don't think he even gets charged.
Posted 6 years ago # -
This is all over BBC radio news this morning. No mention of any similar "review" for deaths caused by motor vehicles, despite the large number of casualties every week.
Posted 6 years ago # -
A very good blog and balanced viewpoint from the Secret Barrister:
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/20/some-thoughts-on-charlie-alliston-and-death-on-the-roads/
Posted 6 years ago # -
This is all over BBC radio news this morning.
The problem is, perception is reality.
It's the same thing with immigrants: The stories that get covered are almost all negative.
(Mainly because negative stories get covered, everyday life doesn't.)
So the picture gets skewed and people start thinking "immigrants are X" or "immigrants do X."
When the government says, "We have to look into what we should charge cyclists with when they kill people," the message people hear is, "Cyclists kill people and they get away with it."
And, because that's the message, when people see stories about cyclists, they're preconditioned to see those two things happen.
But, if the government had said,
"This is an isolated case and cyclists only cause around 0.5% of pedestrian deaths. And this one guy was properly sentenced, so we don't need any new laws."
Then the messages that would have been reinforced would be that
(A) You have almost nothing to fear from cyclists.
(B) Cyclists are properly punished when they cause harm.
And, if that was the message, when people saw stories about cyclists, they'd be preconditioned to see those two things happen.
PS All this stuff is backed by findings in behavioural economics.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"PS All this stuff is backed by findings in behavioural economics."
No doubt, but the politics of nudge went out with D. Cameron.
"The problem is, perception is reality."
And political perception is that 'everyone hates (lawbreaking) cyclists' so, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.
Likely outcome notalot.
Less likely outcome serious look at laws affecting all road users - and sentencing (and more consistency with it).
Posted 6 years ago # -
This is a good thing. If the only tool you have to deal with those that do wrong is 'wanton or furious driving' then clearly this needs to be fixed.
Because the risk of something bad happening is low, doesn't mean there shouldn't be means to deal with it when it does happen. Child abduction and murder is a pretty rare event, even rarer than cyclists killing people on the roads or pavements, but still we charge the perpetrators and lock them up when it happens.
And comparing with driving offenses isn't particularly helpful either, because the law (mostly) has the appropriate tools to deal with bad driving / killing already.
There is a different (and valid) argument about whether those tools are being used appropriately, but to question whether there should be tools available to deal with cycling wrongdoing at all seems futile.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@baldcyclist
" If the only tool you have to deal with those that do wrong is 'wanton or furious driving' then clearly this needs to be fixed."
Why fixed? In what way did it not work in this particular case?
Posted 6 years ago # -
"Child abduction and murder is a pretty rare event, even rarer than cyclists killing people on the roads or pavements"
Is this definitely true?
Posted 6 years ago # -
"The problem is, perception is reality."
Baudrillard would have said the problem is that we can no longer distinguish the real from the hyperreal, or in layman's terms we make no meaningful distinction between our lived reality and the representations of reality from the media landscape that surrounds us.
Which is almost the same as what you said, but not quite.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"the law (mostly) has the appropriate tools to deal with bad driving / killing already."
Does it? I'd like to see the evidence in support of that claim.
Posted 6 years ago # -
According to the Secret Barrister blog that nedd1e-h links to up thread, every offence of violence causing injury short of death is prosecuted under the same 1861 Offences against the person act thAt was portrayed as antique in the press. The section for wanton and furious driving is not used as there are laws that are supposed to protect us against the drivers of mechanical vehicles.
So the law actually already covers the offence. What is not covered is riding a track bike on the road without a front brake. If a car is driven asaweapon t is possible to get a higher custodial sentence than two years. How often this happens, I do not know.
I am happy with parity as then drivers will be forced to justify their use of the road.? Might pave the way for presumed liability?
Posted 6 years ago # -
Editor’s comment: Kim Briggs’ death was a tragedy, but I don’t believe Charlie Alliston deserves to be in jail
Posted 6 years ago # -
ThAt bike looks nice, if a front brake was fitted?
The Hackney gazette editorial omits my point that the cyclist would have only been fined had he not been tweeting about killing the woman.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@gembo
"the cyclist would have only been fined had he not been tweeting about killing the woman. "Is that true? And if it's true, was the jailing for "lack of remorse" or some issue re contempt of court?
If the former, as much as I've read, he claimed via twitter that it wasn't his fault but is sorry the woman died. That doesn't seem particularly eloquent, but eloquence isn't a requirement when showing remorse. He was pleading his innocence, which we're all entitled to do.Posted 6 years ago # -
the cyclist represented a particular demographic, and went to jail because the media demanded it
the urgent review of dangerous cycling has already achieved its goal
which is that cyclists are a problem that drivers shouldn't have to suffer
Posted 6 years ago # -
Posted 6 years ago #
-
@barnton-to-town, yes he said he was sorry but it was not his fault.
He was tried by jury, he should have been more remorseful for sure and they might have found him not guilty or the judge mioght have fined him?
Posted 6 years ago # -
And so it continues
'Now as term time starts, Police Scotland is warning that cycling on illegal bikes will not be tolerated.
Superintendent Louise Blakelock from Police Scotland's Road Policing Unit said that in light of the death in London there would be heightened levels of enforcement in Scotland.
"Cyclists must obey all traffic signs, traffic light signals, must not cycle on pavements and must ensure that their pedal cycle complies with all legal requirements," she said.'
Dead cat dead cat dead cat
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
