http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/dangerous-cycling-bill-proposed-in-parliament
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
" ‘Dangerous Cycling’ bill proposed in Parliament "
(35 posts)-
Posted 14 years ago #
-
Don't worry, it is just a ten miunte rule bill. From the UK Parliament website:
...the process is used more as a means of making a point on the need to change the law on a particular subject as there is little parliamentary time available so they mainly provide the opportunity for MPs to test Parliament's opinion on a particular subject...
Absolutely no chance of becoming law.
Posted 14 years ago # -
The problem is puts ideas into small minds, which is always dangerous...
Posted 14 years ago # -
^what Kim said^
And always remember, facts and commonsense have little to do with politics :-<
eg the SNP want to licencse airguns due to Scotlands "special problem", and yet Scotland is iirc the only part of the UK to have seen a drop in airgun incidents consistently over recent years. not wanting to start that discussion on here, just an example of how politics can distort facts for the majority who don't have a specialist interest.Parliament is discussing it therefore it must be a problem therefore cyclists must be dangerous therefore SOMETHING MUST BE DONE...cue politicos queuing up to "do something" to prove how good they are :-(
(damn government makes me cynical sometimes :-( )
Posted 14 years ago # -
We should all absolutely support this Bill, if we complain about derisory sentences for killing cyclists (which we do). The Bill is based on an extreme event but the point should be that if you use a vehicle to kill or maim, then you should get a significant punishment. If you do it somewhere you are not supposed to be, then that should be an aggravator to that offence.
Posted 14 years ago # -
@mgj is pretty much bang on the money.
We complain about drivers getting a few points and a fine as a 'slap on the wrists'. Double standards if we say that this shouldn't go through?
Yes, along with this there should also be a call for drivers to be dealt with more severely. And there should still be more of a focus on them as the greater threat. But if you oppose such a 'bill' (for, as Morningsider says, this isn't actually a 'bill' as such, the report is a little over-dramatic) you're basically saying 'drivers should be punished strongly for doing something wrong; cyclists less so because. Erm. Well. I'm one of them'.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"Double standards if we say that this shouldn't go through?"
Not really.
There is a good case for review/revising laws and sentencing practice in regard to vehicle v person injuries.
Don't think a separate/special law just for cyclists is desirable.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"Don't think a separate/special law just for cyclists is desirable."
I'd put money on that not being the issue cyclists will complain about with regard to this...
Posted 14 years ago # -
The 'problem' with above case seems to be that he was prosecuted using a law that didn't allow a 'big enough' penalty.
So that was the decision of the police/prosecution not because there was no more appropriate/relevant law(?)
Posted 14 years ago # -
"I'd put money on that not being the issue cyclists will complain about with regard to this"
Not sure that's relevant either.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"The 'problem' with above case seems to be that he was prosecuted using a law that didn't allow a 'big enough' penalty."
So since this is all about treating cyclists equally with motorists, if a new law was brought in then hardly anyone would ever get prosecuted under it, no matter how dangerous their behaviour and if they did they would get the minimum sentance available, right? :-/
Posted 14 years ago # -
Ms Leadsom's proposal was mentioned on politics.co.uk on March 23rd, and attracted (mostly) polite comments from those not in favour.
But Yahoo! News' Talking Politics page has picked up on it and puts it as a brand new story today. The majority of comments there sound identical to those from our fanclub on the EEN and other chip shop suppliers.
It never fails to amaze me. Mankind invents a mode of travel that's faster and more efficient than walking and almost as good as horses, that makes everyone healthier the more they do it, has a very low impact on air quality, noise and resource use, and is powered only by water, jelly babies and peanut butter sandwiches. And yet they still put it down whenever they can.
Posted 14 years ago # -
I have no problem with cyclists, or any other road user being subjected to appropriate legal punishment, in fact I'm all for it.
However... when I hear politicians proposing legislation aimed at one particular group on the basis of a single, or a very limited number of incident/s, then I smell political points scoring which will achieve little but cost lots.Change the wording in the legislation about "death by dangerous driving" to include riding, job done surely? Cheaper, faster and fairer, on the other hand it doesn't generate work/publicity for politicians, (and they have to do something for their freshly increased expenses (grumble grumble))
Posted 14 years ago # -
@Arelicat - not fast enough and get in the way of, yep, cars...use roads built for, again, cars...
The case that this is pinned on was also not reported in any sort of unbiased way, which Ms Leadsom does not seek to point out, unfortunate the girl's death may have been, and it was, but it is said she was actually on the road, had been drinking for a good part of the afternoon (under age) with her friends. She did not actually die as a result of injuries sustained by the bike, but by falling and hitting her head on the kerb, causing internal bleeding, no doubt exacerbated by the alcohol. Just to add the cyclist was a prat and should have taken evasive action or at least braked, and as he said he has to live with this for the rest of his life.
I have no problem with legislation being put in place regarding dangerous riding and causing death by said, but I can see this being abused, if passed, by local constabularies who are less than bike friendly. If this means that they actually do mete out proper sentences to drivers of cars that cause death by dangerous driving too, and highlights the problem with motorists who get away with very light sentences or fines in cases where pedestrians/cyclists have been killed, all well and good.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"If this means that they actually do mete out proper sentences to drivers of cars"
And therein lies the problem. £300 and a few points, maybe a short ban (to run concurrently with any custodial order, naturally)...
Posted 14 years ago # -
I would just like to add...apparently the bike the chap was riding was worth £6,000 (can you not just hear the gasps of shock), and therefore the fine of £2,200 was not commensurate. He could afford a REALLY expensive piece of kit, gasp, gasp...who in their right mind would pay that amount of money for a pushbike, for heaven's sake, and therefore could afford to pay a greater fine. Does this mean that the more expensive your motor is when you flatten someone the fine should be a percentage of it's value or perhaps your income? Nothing to do with you driving an overvalued, overpowered vehicle dangerously.
Posted 14 years ago # -
You can read what happened in the UK Parliament here:
You need to scroll down a bit to get to the right part. I can't argue with a proposal to introduce a new offence of "causing death by dangerous cycling", equivalent to and with similar penalties attached as the current causing death by dangerous driving.
You could only be charged with this offence if you were in some way responsible for killing someone while cycling in a dangerous manner - seems reasonable to me and difficult to see how it could be abused by the police, even if they were so minded.
Liz - I don't think you have thought through your previous comments as you seem to be implying that the person killed in this incident was in some way responsible for their own death.
Posted 14 years ago # -
@dave, actually we are about to move to have any disqualification only start when the person is released from prison, although it is incredibly difficult to do (marrying up DVLA systems with the Earliest Date of Liberation held on Prisons Systems and then checking when the actually get out, etc)
@Liz, doesnt matter what he was riding (although it makes more sense to realise he was riding a mid-life crisis equivalent), the guy was an idiot-hole who deserved a significant prison sentence for killing someone by his deliberate actions
Posted 14 years ago # -
Bit more scepticism required IMO. The hansard account is quite sensational - perhaps the MP has better knowledge than that reported from the trial, but...
"Despite the claims of some that he was riding on the pavement,
deliberatelyran the girl down and so on, the police evidence indicates that he was riding on the road, encountered a group of girls walking in the road, shouted a warning to them and then tried to pass through a gap near the kerb, with the victim stepping into this gap at the last minute." (BR)Of course, with the media, parliament and even other cyclists all convinced that he was tearing down the pavement, it makes little practical difference what evidence was actually presented at trial. (Who would really buy a £6k carbon bike and ride it on the pavement? Honestly?)
Just the other day on the Roseburn I almost flattened a girl who was playing chicken. Fortunately I was travelling slowly enough (unlike the titular cyclist) that when she stepped in front of me she only got oily clothes (which should tell you how close it was).
Had she, also, been drinking? How would the case have been reported in the media if she'd done a Natasha Richardson on me? I bet it wouldn't have been as "drunk asbo youth leaps under wheels of responsible citizen cyclist", anyway.
Perhaps an even better reason to have a headcam.
Posted 14 years ago # -
actually we are about to move to have any disqualification only start when the person is released from prison, although it is incredibly difficult to do (marrying up DVLA systems with the Earliest Date of Liberation held on Prisons Systems and then checking when the actually get out, etc)
Surely it's quite simple - you take the length of ban desired and add to it the custodial sentence. A one year driving ban becomes a two year ban if applied with a one year jail sentence. Whether the jail sentence is commuted early or not, there will be no concern over the criminal getting early access to their driving licence?
Posted 14 years ago # -
@Morningsider, since you chose to interpret what I said the way you did I would say in fact we are all responsible for ourselves, and if we choose to put ourselves at risk then yes you are responsible for the consequences. You are, of course, entitled to translate or interpret anything you like in your own way. If you are not responsible for yourself, pray tell me who is?
Posted 14 years ago # -
Of course, with the media, parliament and even other cyclists all convinced that he was tearing down the pavement, it makes little practical difference what evidence was actually presented at trial. (Who would really buy a £6k carbon bike and ride it on the pavement? Honestly?)
The cyclist could have been charged with cycling on the pavement, had he actually been on the pavement, he was not, which perhaps would suggest that he was on the road and not on the pavement. This would have carried a further penalty of a fine of up to £500. I cannot believe that anyone with a bike worth that amount is going to jump it onto a pavement anyway.
Posted 14 years ago # -
@Dave, if only it was that simple. The sentence served by a prisoner is almost never what the sheriff or judge passes down. Time off for good behaviour, concurrent sentences, further offences, roll-ups etc. A ban requires a license to be endorsed by DVLA at the point they leave prison, and that's difficult to co-ordinate when you dont know in advance how long they will be in. Trust me, significant numbers of civil servants in England (and Scotland will copy) are trying to work out a way of it happening simply. The law change was in the last Coroners Bill.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Liz - I agree that everyone has to take responsibility for their own actions. However, in your first post you argue that the girl died from hitting her head off a kerb and not from injuries caused by being hit by the cyclist. Are you really arguing that the two are unrelated?
You highlight that the girl may have been drinking, and was underage. I would argue the fact that she was underage is irelevant and, unless it had some influence on the incident, so is the fact she may have been drinking.
A court found the cyclist guilty of dangerous cycling after considering the evidence. The cyclist could appeal if they disagreed with this finding.
Posted 14 years ago # -
I would argue the fact that she was underage is irelevant and, unless it had some influence on the incident, so is the fact she may have been drinking.
Of course it's impossible to know - you should be entitled to walk on the road and not be run down whether you've been drinking or not - otherwise places which don't have pavements would be pretty terrible places to live!
Nevertheless, the guy is constantly painted with incredible vitriol for allegedly speeding down the pavement on a £6k carbon bike, practically murdering an angelic young lady. When the accepted facts actually seem to be that he was on the road, that he went for a gap in a group of youths who'd been drinking, rather than stopping - that he stopped to administer CPR rather than just head off and later pretend not to have noticed any impact - it doesn't sound half so bad. It's still wrong - he shouldn't have shouted a warning and tried to ride through the gap, and to reflect that, he was charged with cycling dangerously. Fair enough.
But to argue that cyclists are getting away with murder when, realistically they are getting multiples of the punishment enjoyed by many motorists who kill is untenable, IMO.
Posted 14 years ago # -
@Liz, re expensive bikes on the pavement, tell that to the ERC members who ride along Thirlestane Road on the pavement after their weekly cycle that ends with a bun at either Black Medicine Co or the greasy spoon opposite. Maybe not £6k bikes, but certainly not shy of £1k
Posted 14 years ago # -
From the above link: "A sad incident but one that Andrea Leadson tells from the Daily Mail point of view characterising it as intentional assault with a deadly weapon. The other side of the story is that Rhiannon Bennett and her friends had been drinking Stella in a the park and were playing chicken with the cyclist, Jason Howard, who told them to get out of the road as he approached, but Bennett moved into his path, he collided with her and she hit her head on the kerb. The cycling on the pavement allegation was initially made by her friends but was retracted after the police said she was very probably a foot or so into the road. Howard sounds generally like a bit of an arse but he did put Bennett in the recovery position which is more than her friends did."
Posted 14 years ago # -
More in this on the BEEB
Death-by-dangerous-cycling law considered
As others have said, I'm all for being responsible for our actions but this appears to be a lots of effort (in debating time) for very little return considering how many people die as a result of others actions on the road.
Posted 14 years ago # -
I said it elsewhere - if someone is responsible for negligent homicide, charge them with negligent homicide. We already have a law covering this... baffling.
Posted 14 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
