Death by dangerous riding introduced

[flecc]

The worry isn't so much that we're all going to be sent to jail - it's that this is all anti-cyclist mood music. If you're now campaigning for segregated cycle lanes next to pedestrians, you're doing it in the context of politicians and every other person with a megaphone to the media banging on about deadly cyclists. It's just a big downer on all the work we need done by councils and so on to make roads genuinely safe.

Britain hates cyclists, we just have to live with it, but there are plenty of pluses to be happy about. For example:

Governments local and national including our own are very keen to promote cycling and in many areas are taking active steps to do that.

A perception that bikes can be dangerous encourages segregating them.

The huge growth in cycling in the last decade or so means we are on the winning side, sales up by a staggering 50% in many years from it's old two millions per year.

In the areas where the cycling growth has been greatest the fall in accidents has also been greatest, numbers bringing safety. For example when London's cycling was a fraction of what it is now the cyclist deaths used to peak in the 20s each year. Now it's typically in single figures.

And just look at this cycling growth quote:

"Cycling in London has seen remarkable growth," says a new document from the Mayor of London's office and the Greater London Authority. It is sometimes suggested that cycling is a marginal or fringe activity. In London, this is no longer true. In zone 1, during the morning rush hour, 32 per cent of all vehicles on the roads are now bicycles. On some main roads, up to 70 per cent of vehicles are bicycles."

According to TfL, motorists entering central London during the morning peak in 2000 outnumbered cyclists by more than 11 to 1. By 2014, the ratio was 1.7 to 1. "If these trends continue, the number of people commuting to central London by bike will overtake the number commuting by car in three years," believes TfL.

So there's lots to be encouraged by, and the more cyclists appear on our roads, the more attitudes will be forced to change.
.

 

[rower]

So there's lots to be encouraged by, and the more cyclists appear on our roads, the more attitudes will be forced to change.
.

There's undeniably been progress - you compare the early 90s (when my dad worked as a cycle courier in London) to today there have clearly been big improvements. But cyclists have not been as nearly strong a lobby as they ought to be, relative to the motorists who have had untold billions of pounds spent on new infrastructure, maintenance, not to mention tolerance of the shocking externalities of pedestrian/cyclist deaths and pollution emissions.

If government spending on "road investment" (which let's face it is pitched at cars and trucks) from 2015-2020 is £15.2bn. In the course of a decade, the comparable spend in cycling is scheduled to be £1.2bn (and I'll believe it when I see it). When you halve £1.2bn to make that equivalent to the 2015-2020 spending, that's about 4% the amount!

A perception that bikes can be dangerous encourages segregating them.

If only - I think it's more likely that they'll just be banned from safer and quieter routes because the NIMBYs and special interest groups want to keep their on-street parking, and we're going to be shepharded back among the HGVs all over again.

I'm in a bit of a foul mood today after my mum got knocked over by a driver granted but it really does stick in my craw that we get such a raw deal.

 

[flecc]

That's a very good point. There should be an offence of reckless or dangerous walking. There's very little in the way of deterrents to this behaviour, so it's no surprise that it's prevalent.

There's actually no legal deterrent, UK law is entirely predicated on the vehicle user being responsible for avoidance. There's only advisory guidance for pedestrians such as that in the Highway Code which virtually no pedestrians ever read.

This isn't uncommon, only a few countries have pedestrian control laws and when they exist it's mainly in the form of rules banning random crossing within certain distances of approved crossings.
.

 

[flecc]

If government spending on "road investment" (which let's face it is pitched at cars and trucks) from 2015-2020 is £15.2bn. In the course of a decade, the comparable spend in cycling is scheduled to be £1.2bn (and I'll believe it when I see it). When you halve £1.2bn to make that equivalent to the 2015-2020 spending, that's about 4% the amount!

Not a good argument to make, since cycling represents 3% of journeys in the UK.

So that 4% spent on us seems to be an overspend!

That £1.2 billions is probably true, London alone has spent over half a billion in that time.
.

 

[rower]

Not a good argument to make, since cycling represents 3% of journeys in the UK.

Au contraire, I'd reply that this supports the business case for more spending. The % is low because cyclists are maligned on the road, disproportionately maimed and killed by motorists, and the fear of road cycling is what is keeping masses of Brits from pedalling or e-biking to work or their other daily travels.

 

[flecc]

the fear of road cycling is what is keeping masses of Brits from pedalling or e-biking to work or their other daily travels.

I agree, but disputed your posted mathematical basis for change which clearly didn't exist.
.

 

[rower]

I agree, but disputed your posted mathematical basis for change which clearly didn't exist.
.

The joke relative proportions isn't the basis for the change, it's an attack on the government's treating motorists like royalty and leaving the cyclists picking up scraps from the table. And now they're coming after as as dangerous public enemies out to murder your granny.

 

[flecc]

And now they're coming after as as dangerous public enemies out to murder your granny.

It's important to keep a sense of proportion. This law hasn't happened yet, may never happen and if it does, will very rarely be used as I've posted.

Politicians seek popularity and often make such opportunist announcements. I'm treating it with the proverbial pinch of salt.
.

 

[nemesis]

Heaven help anyone riding an illegal pedelec that kills someone,the consequences don`t bear thinking about.

 

[mike killay]

Heaven help anyone riding an illegal pedelec that kills someone,the consequences don`t bear thinking about.

I totally agree.
If you look at the courier case, the lack of any brakes inflamed the Press and it was open season then.
His stupid lippy statements did not help, but the fact was that the pedestrian was the primary cause of the accident.
Although we do not have any jay walking laws per se, it is held that such careless walking can cause an illegal obstruction of the highway.
But this was ignored. I imagine the Press would have a field day with a similar accident involving a 'Souped up' ebike.

 

[flecc]

Heaven help anyone riding an illegal pedelec that kills someone,the consequences don`t bear thinking about.

They'll naturally be dealt with under motor vehicle law, which is entirely right and proper since they will be riding a moped.

If found guilty the guideline penalty for causing death by dangerous driving is two years imprisonment and that is the most common sentence.

However as I posted earlier, that charge is rarely brought by the CPS since it can be very difficult to prove. There is often no clear distinction between dangerous driving and and the various forms of driving without due care and attention, so the lesser charge is often preferred to ensure conviction.

The press do not conduct trials, the courts do and I see no unfairness in the way they dealt with the most recent case.
.

 

[Danidl]

A decision in a Dublin court today has some bearing on the item under discussion. A cyclist while riding on a footpath collided with a car exiting it's drive. Although the cyclist was on the footpath, and there was an adjacent cycle lane. , he sued the car driver.
The case was thrown out and the cyclist will have to pay costs.

 

[LeighPing]

Mobile phone use and headphones.. Should there be a law against their use when walking on a shared cycle path?

 

[Deleted member 4366]

Mobile phone use and headphones.. Should there be a law against their use when walking on a shared cycle path?

Sort him out, Leigh!

 

[BillyBoy88]

Mobile phone use and headphones.. Should there be a law against their use when walking on a shared cycle path?

I agree with this as many of the paths here are shared with pedestrians, especially early morning when all the keep fit brigade are out with their earphones in, even with the use of my bell they do not hear me so I slow down as I go past but some get the arse because they did not hear me and I made them jump.

 

[Nealh]

Get an Airzound they will here you then .

 

[BillyBoy88]

Get an Airzound they will here you then .

Thank you, but may kill off a few old Grannies

 

[Chris.]

I was riding 3 weeks ago and had to use the subway to navigate a dangerous roundabout and there is a barrier to prevent cars going over to the pavement on the approach. A car had hit the barrier and broken the bars and they were bent inwards toward the bike lane. I had to swerve because I only saw them at the last moment and could have hit them. But bare in mind this was in full daylight. I informed the local council telling them to repair it and bending them inwards was not good enough because someone could purposefully bend them back. 3 weeks on its not repaired and there is a sign that has been kicked down creating a further obstruction in the bike lane. The bars have been bent backwards as I predicted. It seems the local council cant get hold of angle grinders and only publicity sorts problems out and changes laws. Ill be saving my complaint as proof that they were well informed when a cyclist gets seriously injured or some kid in a pram gets there eye ripped out or worse