Death by dangerous riding introduced

Ministers are set to recommend a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling under plans expected to be announced this week, it has been reported.Ministers are set to recommend a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling under plans expected to be announced this week, it has been reported.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/04/death-by-dangerous-cycling-offence-to-be-introduced-reports?

Good idea, clearly there is an epidemic of pedestrians being killed by dangerous cyclists at the moment.

"Mrs Briggs’s widower, Matthew, from Lewisham, south London, told the Mail on Sunday it would be a “big achievement” to get the law changed.

 

He said: “I can’t make sense of what happened. I have no idea how my kids can make sense of it. I want to make sure that Kim’s dying wasn’t the end. I want the kids to look back in the future and see something was accomplished. That she made it a little bit easier for people in the future.”"

Whilst I have every sympathy with Mr Briggs, wasn't the reason she was killed because she stepped into the road without looking while texting on her phone? Shouldn't he be trying to figure out ways to stop more pedestrians doing that rather than concentrating on the unfortunate cyclist. I wonder how many pedestrians are killed by drivers when the pedestrian steps out into the road without looking or listening while texting on their phones compares with the one killed by the cyclist. I know I've had a few near misses (as a driver, not pedestrian!).

Mr Briggs is just shifting blame. When clearly, and unfortunately, it was primarily the fault of his wife. Rest in peace. Had the kid shown any remorse, he may well have avoided his months in jail.

 

I should add that, despite many trying to make some tenuous link to them, this incident has absolutely naff all to do with ebikes. They are inherently safer than regular push-bikes.

Leaving aside the hurt and anger and blame shifting by the unfortunate Mr Biggs, look rationally at the matter. The police decided to bring a prosecution under a really archaic law . Should there be an criminal offense of killing someone , by accidentally hitting them at speed , when due care and attention have not been demonstrated and where a minor traffic violation has occured. ?. If so would it apply to extreme prampushers or joggers

As a pedestrian in London , on one of my few visits, I was harassed by two young yobs ?? Riding their bikes at speed on a footpath in West Kensington, but I Don't think I would have wanted them imprisoned.

The key to this was the bike not having a front brake, indeed no effective brake since a fixie is no substitute.

 

That's idiotic when riding on public roads filled with other users. Hopefully the other chumps who do this will have sat up, taken notice and fitted a front brake.

 

Riding without one is just a form of showing off since the miniscule weight addition cannot be a consideration.

.

I don't have any problem with that law really. As said it is ever more important to drum it into peoples heads that you don't step into the road without 'stop, look, listen' - remember that?! I'm always scanning for idiots, dodged dozens just this year. People need to stop relying on their ears to judge if it's fine to cross. It's going to get worse if electric hybrid cars catch on further

 

But it can't be easy to kill somebody on a pushbike can it? And I think that if you manage that somehow you're pretty much guaranteed to have been cycling recklessly .. Therefore most people will be unaffected by it.

 

It's not exactly the most important thing to have, but it's not a bad thing to have it either

But it can't be easy to kill somebody on a pushbike can it? And I think that if you manage that somehow you're pretty much guaranteed to have been cycling recklessly ..

 

Sadly it is very easy.

 

Years ago there was a case that also gained great notoriety when a Cornish man riding down a pavement slope hit a young girl emerging from her garden gate and killed her.

 

There have been many more since, this Google link has four additional cases from the top.

 

Bikes and riders with their irregular shapes can be far more lethal than cars at up to 30 mph, the shape of most modern cars having been designed to shed a pedestrian over the smoothly profiled bodywork to minimise injury.

 

Lots of attention has gone into this as part of car safety standards, such things as making sure the wipers wont snag a body sliding up a bonnet and sloping windscreen and removing all other projections.

 

The outcome is that most car-pedestrian collisions up to 30 mph are survival incidents.

.

The key to this was the bike not having a front brake, indeed no effective brake since a fixie is no substitute.

 

That's idiotic when riding on public roads filled with other users. Hopefully the other chumps who do this will have sat up, taken notice and fitted a front brake.

 

Riding without one is just a form of showing off since the miniscule weight addition cannot be a consideration.

.

It's only idiotic in your/our frame of reference. Some of these fixie riders have unbelievable control of their bikes, and I bet that they can stop them a lot quicker than the majority of the bikes on the road.

 

If you're like me, you like to have a front brake that bites as hard as you want when you apply it, but I'm sure you had plenty of people that brought bikes into your shop for punctures to be fixed that had brakes that didn't work at all. On my new £600 Dahon, the front brake was as good as useless in less than 100 miles.

It's only idiotic in your/our frame of reference. Some of these fixie riders have unbelievable control of their bikes, and I bet that they can stop them a lot quicker than the majority of the bikes on the road.

 

While I accept that many little used bikes are ill maintained, those regularly used like commuting bikes are usually much better and will stop in a fraction of the space that any fixie rider can achieve. Apart from any other factor any form of rear brake on a bike is far outperformed by a front brake.

 

Many years ago when much younger and very cycling fit I tried riding fixie for a while and know that it isn't in any way an effective brake, just a means of gradual slowing. There was no way I would have gone without a front brake.

 

Living in London and seeing the fixie courier riders in action I know that their skills are in avoidance since those relying on the fixie just cannot stop quickly and don't even attempt to.

 

Hopefully that's changing since that case since any brakeless fixie rider now in a collision will suffer a severe legal collision too.

.

flecc, I just want say that the common factor in those google incidents I read, is reckless cycling. And I was talking from the angle of accidentally causing death without it. We shouldn't be on the pavement at all ideally and I'll admit in certain spots for a short time I use them. But doing 20 or 30 mph? I stick to about 3-5mph.

 

I don't know, I just think you ought to be equally as responsible for your actions regardless if it's a pushbike or a bus you're in control of. And people who ride at the edge of control for a thrill in inappropriate areas, oblivious to possible consequences and the safety of others, and then unfortunately kill somebody should get the same penalty that someone driving would. Counts for injuring people too in my mind.

 

I realise you haven't disagreed with that, by the way It's just that people not cycling that way don't have anything to worry about!

flecc, I just want say that the common factor in those google incidents I read, is reckless cycling. And I was talking from the angle of accidentally causing death without it. We shouldn't be on the pavement at all ideally and I'll admit in certain spots for a short time I use them. But doing 20 or 30 mph? I stick to about 3-5mph.

 

I don't know, I just think you ought to be equally as responsible for your actions regardless if it's a pushbike or a bus you're in control of. And people who ride at the edge of control for a thrill in inappropriate areas, oblivious to possible consequences and the safety of others, and then unfortunately kill somebody should get the same penalty that someone driving would. Counts for injuring people too in my mind.

 

I realise you haven't disagreed with that, by the way It's just that people not cycling that way don't have anything to worry about!

 

Yes I tend to agree, but I just wanted to draw attention to how easy it is for a bike rider to kill since those could just as easily happen on a road with the rider at the common 20/25 mph speed. So even responsible riders do have something to worry about, given how aimlessly and unpredictably pedestrians can behave.

.

Undoubtedly a tragedy, and maybe I would feel differently I was involved in something like this. (many years ago, before 'death by dangerous driving' was an offence, a relative was killed by a "joy rider" on the wrong side of the road - they spent less than 18 months in a young offenders institution, thankfully times change).

 

I also agree we are responsible for the consequences of our actions. But given I average a near miss on phone zombie pedestrian at least once a week this is a bit of a concern - they are the menace here, but they are also not taking responsibility. Like others I think (hope) electric cars will have some form of Darwinian effect, as zombie phone pedestrians do seem to rely on their hearing

 

Having said that, using a bell is pointless, shouting doesn't even get a response from most folks, as they seem too obsessed with the screen and not their environment

 

Funnily enough the one thing that I find actually works really well is my rear brake, which needs adjusting. It squeals in quite a terrifying manner if used in anger and >90% of the time gets an immediate response

I had a near miss with a student absorbed on her phone stepping from the pavement straight out in front of me. As the gradient on that bit of road is gently downhill I had the motor off, but was travelling around 20mph.

 

There was no chance to use the brakes, just make a slight swerve, shout loudly and more by luck, very, very, narrowly miss her.

 

I am 100kg, plus 10kg of panniers and 20kg of bike at 20mph hitting a teenage girl college student. Doesn't bear thinking about.

 

It happened when the lad who killed the woman was in the papers and I thought afterwards how I might have been treated if I had hit and badly hurt or killed her.

 

I can only think that she was only using her ears rather than eyes and I was making very little noise.

 

I have good brakes but if someone steps out when you are very close to them they are not really going to help.

 

I must admit I found the attitude of the lad who killed Mrs Briggs did not endear him towards me.

 

However after my near miss it made me realize that if Mrs Briggs stepped out when he was almost on her, his lack of brakes would have made little difference to the outcome of the accident but been very damning in the investigation afterwards.

Hundreds of people killed and maimed by drivers, and the air pollution they emit, every year because they're treated like royalty and pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure is a joke: I sleep.

 

A tiny number of people are hurt in cycling accidents: NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED.

 

>Austin said: “Each death is a tragedy but what I and others have been calling for is a proper review of road safety and how the law is enforced when people are killed or injured because many more pedestrians and cyclists have been killed by people driving cars. They are a much greater danger to pedestrians and should be the focus of government resources.”

 

I appreciate the man is in grief. But this is just an utter falsehood.

FOI request re pedestrian deaths on the pavement from bikes vs cars:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uk_accident_statistics_for_pedes

 

1. Query:

 

Dear Office for National Statistics,

Please could you furnish me with the national statistics, as available, for:

1) Deaths and KSIs arising from collisions between pedestrians and bicycles on pavements

2) Deaths and KSIs arising from collisions between pedestrians and cars on pavements

I would like the statistics for the last three recorded years.

 

2. Response:

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, you requested the following

information:

 

1) Deaths and KSIs arising from collisions between pedestrians and

bicycles on pavements

 

2) Deaths and KSIs arising from collisions between pedestrians and cars on

pavements

 

ONS response:

 

The table attached provides the number of deaths where a pedestrian was

injured in a traffic accident as a result of a collision with (a) pedal

cycle or (b) car, pick-up or truck, in England and Wales, for the years

2006 to 2010 (the latest year available).

 

The mortality data held by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) comes

from the information recorded at death registration. The causes you listed

would all be referred to a coroner, so the cause of death is taken from

the conditions / events mentioned on the coroner's death certificate. All

of the conditions mentioned on a death certificate are coded using the

International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD 10), and an

underlying cause of death is selected using ICD coding rules.

 

Accidental causes of death are subdivided to reflect the victim***s mode

of transport and type of event. Transport accidents involving pedestrians

are subdivided into the type of vehicle involved in the collision and

whether the accident was classified as ***traffic***, ***non-traffic*** or

***unspecified***. The term ***traffic*** denotes that the accident

occurred on the public highway which could have occurred on either the

road or a pavement; therefore deaths that occurred on a pavement cannot be

specifically identified.

 

ONS are only able to provide statistics on deaths, not on accidents where

the pedestrian was seriously injured but not killed. Information on

numbers of KSIs is available from the Department for Transport

([1]www.dft.gov.uk).

 

.

Table 1: Number of deaths where a pedestrian was injured in collision with

(a) a pedal cycle, or (b) a car, pick-up truck or van, England and Wales,

2006-2010

 

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

| Deaths (persons) |

|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Year | (a) Pedestrian hit by | (b) Pedestrian hit by |

| | pedal cycle | car, pick-up or truck |

|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|

| 2006 | 3 | 233 |

|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|

| 2007 | 6 | 267 |

|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|

| 2008 | 3 | 247 |

|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|

| 2009 | 0 | 141 |

|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|

| 2010 | 2 | 123 |

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

^1 Cause of death was defined using the International Classification of

Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes V01.1, V01.9 (Pedestrian injured

in collision with pedal cycle) and V03.1, V03.9 (Pedestrian injured in

collision with car, pick-up truck or van).

 

^2 Deaths include accidents in traffic and where the place of death was

unspecified whether the accident was in traffic or in nontraffic.

 

^3 Includes deaths of non-residents, based on boundaries as of May 2011.

 

^4 Figures are for deaths registered in each calendar year. ^

Edited March 5, 20188 yr by rower

Oh and would you believe it, just had a text from the dad, my mum got knocked off her bike by some King Knut driving a BMW who promptly ran off. Performed a dangerous overtake, clipped the handlebars and then hit and ran. She isn't seriously injured because she was wearing full PPE but anything could have happened especially if another vehicle had missed her lying on the floor. But let's make sure those DANGEROUS CYCLISTS are threatened with the letter of the law

What about Death by Dangerous Walking? A pedestrian walking dangerously (smart phone rendering blind, iPod rendering deaf,...) causes an accident in which a cyclist is killed:

 

- knocked over, hits head (a helmet will not prevent a blow to the jaw!)

- swerves to avoid pedestrian and is killed by car/bus/truck/...

 

The only time I have "struck" a "pedestrian" (drunk tramp) was when he stepped out from between two cars and I was the casualty. I bumped his leg with my front wheel despite braking hard and fell over into the middle of the road because my feet were strapped in... I could have been killed by a following vehicle quite easily.

 

Nowadays in the age of the "smart" phone (usually held by "dumb" user oblivious to world at large) pedestrians are just as dangerous as cyclists in my experience.

We don't need to worry about this new law if it comes into force since it will very rarely be used, as the equivalent law for drivers shows. There are a few laws that are extremely difficult to prove so the Crown Prosecution Service are very reluctant to ever use them. Among them are such extremes as dangerous driving and attempted murder.

 

It will be little different for dangerous cycling where, just as for drivers, a downgraded charge will normally be preferred to ensure conviction.

.

We don't need to worry about this new law if it comes into force since it will very rarely be used, as the equivalent law for drivers shows. There are a few laws that are extremely difficult to prove so the Crown Prosecution Service are very reluctant to ever use them. Among them are such extremes as dangerous driving and attempted murder.

 

It will be little different for dangerous cycling where, just as for drivers, a downgraded charge will normally be preferred to ensure conviction.

.

 

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.

What about Death by Dangerous Walking? A pedestrian walking dangerously (smart phone rendering blind, iPod rendering deaf,...) causes an accident in which a cyclist is killed:

 

- knocked over, hits head (a helmet will not prevent a blow to the jaw!)

- swerves to avoid pedestrian and is killed by car/bus/truck/...

 

The only time I have "struck" a "pedestrian" (drunk tramp) was when he stepped out from between two cars and I was the casualty. I bumped his leg with my front wheel despite braking hard and fell over into the middle of the road because my feet were strapped in... I could have been killed by a following vehicle quite easily.

 

Nowadays in the age of the "smart" phone (usually held by "dumb" user oblivious to world at large) pedestrians are just as dangerous as cyclists in my experience.

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. Of course on the continent it's not such a problem for cyclists because if a pedestrian puts a step on the cycle path there, they either get dragged off or arrested, while as our pedestrians claim right of way on the cycle path.

 

I wonder how many drivers had to pay for repairs or lost their NCB after a reckless pedestrian stepped out in front of them - never mind the inconvenience and mental trauma caused when they see said pedestrian splattered all over the windscreen.

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.

.

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.

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.

.

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.

.

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.