# Killer cyclists



## DRM (6 Aug 2022)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62444889
The government are now saying killer cyclists should be jailed for longer, don’t they need to sort out carp drivers first, I wonder what the numbers are in comparison between drivers that kill, and cyclists that hit and kill someone, seems to be Grant Chapps spouting off in the Daily Fail where this has come from


----------



## Mo1959 (6 Aug 2022)

DRM said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62444889
> The government are now saying killer cyclists should be jailed for longer, don’t they need to sort out carp drivers first, I wonder what the numbers are in comparison between drivers that kill, and cyclists that hit and kill someone, seems to be Grant Chapps spouting off in the Daily Fail where this has come from



The constant feeling of animosity against cyclists in this country is really starting to get to me, to the extent that I'm really not enjoying it nearly so much any more.


----------



## Joffey (6 Aug 2022)

Quiet news day for the Daily Mail I think. Sunak and Truss are showing themselves up so they are avoiding that. War in Ukraine is depressing. Not much good news so let's whip up some cyclist hate!


----------



## cougie uk (6 Aug 2022)

Announced on the same day as they said that soon any old driver will be able to drive a 7.5t truck.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (6 Aug 2022)

I don;t necessarily disagree with the idea but it certainly should not just be for cyclists

probably anyone using the road, including the pavement, in a reckless manner

clearly one person walking into another person is unlikely to kill them in a reckless and dangerous manner like a cyclist riding at speed
but I have seen runners moving at speed and assuming everyone will see them and get out of their way
and - of course - electric scooters can go at all sorts of speeds as they are not regulated as they are illegal anyway - and so should come under the same category
I suppose what I am saying is that it should include anyone using the roads dangerously and recklessly - and putting it that way would automatically include any 'personal transport; systems that crop up in the future and become popular

but spending parliamentary time on something that happens so rarely when other things happen on roads fat more often are ignored 0 is not productive


but it does look good to your average reader of the rag in question


----------



## a.twiddler (6 Aug 2022)

Perhaps they just need to have a read of the Highway Code. "Pyramid of Responsibility" and all that.


----------



## Teamfixed (6 Aug 2022)

How sad it is that the headline sounds more like a Hitchcock movie.


----------



## toffee (6 Aug 2022)

DRM said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62444889
> The government are now saying killer cyclists should be jailed for longer, don’t they need to sort out carp drivers first, I wonder what the numbers are in comparison between drivers that kill, and cyclists that hit and kill someone, seems to be Grant Chapps spouting off in the Daily Fail where this has come from



Perhaps he was trying to take the heat off our next prime minister and her latest gaff by getting everyone to talk about something else


----------



## Mike_P (6 Aug 2022)

It's the old levelling up edit, potentially jailing one group (cyclists currently 2 years max) for as long as another group (14 years max). As to motorists general ignorance of regulations this morning I had a 4wD pass on the opposite direction at TTLs which were definitely on red when I subsequently looked back and a van going straight on at a left turn only for vehicles.


----------



## MichaelW2 (6 Aug 2022)

Of the 40 pedestrians killed on the pavement each year 1/3 of a person is killed by a cyclist


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (6 Aug 2022)

I'm guessing but there seem to have been more than 40 headlines in the Daily Fail about 'killer cyclists' over the last year

$deity knows how many if you include the Express


----------



## Phaeton (6 Aug 2022)

Numbers don't stack up really do they


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (6 Aug 2022)

Well yes but what about the ones who don't wear a helmet!!!!!

and they *all* go through red lights!!!!!!!!

AND they don't pay Road Tax

mutter mutter mutter


----------



## numbnuts (6 Aug 2022)

https://ukdaily.news/southhampshire...er-killing-a-cyclist-in-southampton-5714.html
Has been described as "selfish and thoughtless".What about a bloody murderer
was sentenced to 21 months in prison


----------



## Cycleops (6 Aug 2022)

Can’t imagine what has brought this about. Maybe because there have been some high profile cases and the guy campaigning for a stiffer sentences whose wife was killed by a cyclist on a fixie without brakes. Wasn’t she a phone zombie? Not excusing the cyclist.
Car drivers who kill cyclist don’t seem to get much more than two years either. *This* is the area where sentencing needs to be increased.


----------



## Joffey (6 Aug 2022)

Cycleops said:


> Can’t imagine what has brought this about. Maybe because there have been some high profile cases and the guy campaigning for a stiffer sentences whose wife was killed by a cyclist on a fixie without brakes. Wasn’t she a phone zombie? Not excusing the cyclist.
> Car drivers who kill cyclist don’t seem to get much more than two years either. *This* is the area where sentencing needs to be increased.



Yes, sentencing for drivers is terrible. Look at these three on the link. Only 1 served any jail time and it was only a sentence for 2.5 years. Where is the outrage from the Daily Mail?

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/killer-drivers-with-low-sentences-20353834


----------



## Bonefish Blues (6 Aug 2022)

I agree with the legislation, I disagree violently with its reporting.

Matthew Briggs (widower) explained it calmly, coherently and very impressively on R4 this morning, I thought.


----------



## Cycleops (6 Aug 2022)

Bonefish Blues said:


> I agree with the legislation, I disagree violently with its reporting.
> 
> Matthew Briggs (widower) explained it calmly, coherently and very impressively on R4 this morning, I thought.


I'm sure he did, he has quite naturally, a biased perspective. I can also hear the cheers from the Daily Fail proletariat but it doesn't make a real case for a change in the sentencing legislation.


----------



## Phaeton (6 Aug 2022)

I'm not sure that prison is the right place for these people, a total life ban on driving/minimum 10 years, a huge curtailment of liberties, strict curfew, community work, potentially a requirement to help support the bereaved family.


----------



## numbnuts (6 Aug 2022)

Phaeton said:


> I'm not sure that prison is the right place for these people, a total life ban on driving/minimum 10 years, a huge curtailment of liberties, strict curfew, community work, potentially a requirement to help support the bereaved family.



Yeah right and I'm sure they will stick with it, it seems today we do more for the guilty than the victim, what next “the person I killed should not have been there”


----------



## PK99 (6 Aug 2022)

There is nothing wrong with this propsal.
Shapps;

“As we move into an era of sustained mass cycling, a thoroughly good thing, we must bring home to cyclists – too often themselves the victims of careless or reckless motoring – that the obligation to put safety first applies equally to every road user. There can be no exceptions.”


----------



## Bonefish Blues (6 Aug 2022)

Cycleops said:


> I'm sure he did, he has quite naturally, a biased perspective. I can also hear the cheers from the Daily Fail proletariat but it doesn't make a real case for a change in the sentencing legislation.



Have a listen on R4 Today. His portrayal was the antithesis of the usual Victim-Crusader, who I also deprecate, as do you.


----------



## All uphill (6 Aug 2022)

Mo1959 said:


> The constant feeling of animosity against cyclists in this country is really starting to get to me, to the extent that I'm really not enjoying it nearly so much any more.



I'm sorry it's affecting you that way.

Maybe I'm lucky here in the South-West; so long as I avoid reading the tabloid press and the school run I don't pick up on much animosity, and I do get lots of cheery greetings and smiles.


----------



## Phaeton (6 Aug 2022)

PK99 said:


> There is nothing wrong with this propsal.
> Shapps;
> 
> “As we move into an era of sustained mass cycling, a thoroughly good thing, we must bring home to cyclists – too often themselves the victims of careless or reckless motoring – that the obligation to put safety first applies equally to every road user. There can be no exceptions.”



Although the sentiment is there, it doesn't help if the message doesn't go out, 

Coming back from town in the car there's a cyclist coming the opposite way, it's uphill & for my mind he was too close to the kerb to start with, but he was overtaken by a car (estimated 50mph) just as I went past him, there was less than 2ft between me & the other car & less than 2ft between the other car & the cyclist.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (6 Aug 2022)

I’m sure the time could be spent on legislation tackling more pressing concerns.


----------



## TheDoctor (6 Aug 2022)

It's all getting a bit "Don't Look Up".


----------



## chris667 (6 Aug 2022)

I think this is fair enough. 

How many people will actually be sentenced for killing someone while riding a bike? It's a bit of a non-issue really.


----------



## fossyant (6 Aug 2022)

chris667 said:


> I think this is fair enough.
> 
> How many people will actually be sentenced for killing someone while riding a bike? It's a bit of a non-issue really.



Exactly, I've no issues with it, so long as drivers face the same. The guy that mashed my spine didn't get a slapped wrist. Killer drivers are the issue. Daily fail this week was all about the 'poor' celeb in his G Wagon, that killed a motorbiker. OK I 'believe' the motorbike was on the wrong side of the road', but the poor car driver.


----------



## Arrowfoot (6 Aug 2022)

Hope they target the lot that ride on pavements endangering the elderly pedestrians and the kids.


----------



## Phaeton (6 Aug 2022)

fossyant said:


> Daily fail this week was all about the 'poor' celeb in his G Wagon, that killed a motorbiker. OK I 'believe' the motorbike was on the wrong side of the road', but the poor car driver.



I have a slightly different view on this, over 40 years ago a friend of mine was killed when he hit a double decker bus at over 100mph (estimated) on his motorbike, he & his girlfriend died instantaneously, I also know the guy who had to go round looking for the pieces in the ditches & the hedgerow for their remains as the Police had nobody with the stomach to do it. I also know he had to refused to allow my friends father to see his son to say Goodbye as there was not enough to make him recognisable. This is a really tragic tale of 2 18 year olds, but it is only one side of the story.

I never met the man who was driving the bus, he did nothing wrong, he was just doing his job when out of the blue this motorcycle came around the bend on the wrong side of the road & slammed into the front of the bus, he didn't even have time to make any form of avoidance movement not that there was anywhere to go anyway. But I do know that Saturday afternoon was the last day he ever worked, it was the last time he ever drove, was very reluctant to get into any vehicle & would have to be coerced into doing so. He never slept properly again as he relived that moment, he was under medical & psychiatrist help for the rest of his relatively short life.

I know nothing of the story of the 'celeb' or what did or didn't happen, but as always there are 2 sides to each story


----------



## DRM (6 Aug 2022)

numbnuts said:


> https://ukdaily.news/southhampshire...er-killing-a-cyclist-in-southampton-5714.html
> Has been described as "selfish and thoughtless".What about a bloody murderer
> was sentenced to 21 months in prison



So off his head on cannabis, seconds earlier had his phone clamped to his ear, and also no insurance, goes on to hit an innocent cyclist equates to 21 months inside, just wow, what planet are the judiciary on


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (6 Aug 2022)

Why isn't this on the NACA forum?

P. S. I didn't vote for the farkers


----------



## Pat "5mph" (6 Aug 2022)

LCpl Boiled Egg said:


> Why isn't this on the NACA forum?
> 
> P. S. I didn't vote for the farkers


Mod Note:
It is fine on here just now: let's comment on this law that affects cyclists, let's not comment on political parties


----------



## Alex321 (6 Aug 2022)

Cycleops said:


> I'm sure he did, he has quite naturally, a biased perspective. I can also hear the cheers from the Daily Fail proletariat but it doesn't make a real case for a change in the sentencing legislation.



What does make a case for it is the simple fact that for causing death by dangerous driving, maximum sentence 14 years, by careless driving, 5 years. By cycling, no matter how reckless, maximum 2 years.

None of those maximums are frequently imposed, but if half the maximum is imposed, you still get far more severe sentences for killing somebody with a car than for doing so with a bike. The fact that it is so much less frequent is pretty irrelevant.


----------



## steveindenmark (7 Aug 2022)

Mo1959 said:


> The constant feeling of animosity against cyclists in this country is really starting to get to me, to the extent that I'm really not enjoying it nearly so much any more.



This animosity is recipricated by the cycling community. It certainly is not one way.

It just goes round and round in circles. Pointlessly. Until someone steps out of the circle nothing will be solved.

We dont have this animosity in Denmark. Households have more bikes than cars. Children cycle to school. When an estate is built, the first thing laid down are footpaths and cycle paths. We share the paths with pedestrians, mopeds, electric scooter etc and we get along.

I think a big part of the reason has nothing to do with bikes, cars and infrastructure. Its because Brits are wired to be confrontational. The Danes are totally the opposite. But they get what they want by reasoning. I can clearly see the difference between myself and the Danes. But after 20 years of being here. I have assimilated....A bit.

As dross as the article is. I dont put cars into the discussion. If there is a way to reduce the number of deaths by cyclists. Then it should be looked at and addressed. Deaths by drivers is another topic which is being addressed constantly.


----------



## iandg (7 Aug 2022)

I saw the Guardian headline

Cyclists in UK who kill pedestrians could be prosecuted same as motorists​
So I assumed that to mean they'll get sweet FA except a few points on their licence. Oh wait, cyclists don't have a licence 


Edit: Seriously tho', as others above have commented, if someone kills someone by acting dangerously, whether that be a scooter, bike, car, van, lorry or whatever, shouldn't they all be treated in the same way?


----------



## Profpointy (7 Aug 2022)

cougie uk said:


> Announced on the same day as they said that soon any old driver will be able to drive a 7.5t truck.



To be fair any *old* driver can already drive a 7.5 tonner. The driving test was obviously more comprehensive back in my day :-)


----------



## steveindenmark (7 Aug 2022)

iandg said:


> I saw the Guardian headline
> 
> Cyclists in UK who kill pedestrians could be prosecuted same as motorists​
> So I assumed that to mean they'll get sweet FA except a few points on their licence. Oh wait, cyclists don't have a licence
> ...



Yes another headline written by an idiot. My response is " Yes they should be prosecuted the same as motorists. Thats why they are". The process is exactly the same.

As for sentencing. The author needs to do some research. Sentencing on either count is never consistant. Which is why everyone gets annoyed. That frustration should be aimed at the judicial system and not each other. 

A local guy from close to where I am from in the UK was killed whilexhe was cycling last year. The driver was an off duty ambulance driver who has shown no remorse. He was drunk when the accident happened.

In the current situation it was a good result, when you see other sentences. A life cannot only be worth 5 years when taken in these circumstances. The sentence is neither justice for the family or a deterrent to the driver.

Sentences for death by dangerous driving or cycling should be looked at the same as a starting point.


----------



## PK99 (7 Aug 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Although the sentiment is there, it doesn't help if the message doesn't go out,
> 
> Coming back from town in the car there's a cyclist coming the opposite way, it's uphill & *for my mind he was too close to the kerb to start with*, but he was overtaken by a car (estimated 50mph) just as I went past him, there was less than 2ft between me & the other car & less than 2ft between the other car & the cyclist.



Without wishing to be overly semantic - I see a difference between "passing" and "overtaking".

Cycling too close to the kerb makes it possible for cars to pass without deviating from their straight line

My normal road positioning (strong secondary) is such that any car wishing to overtake has to carry out an overtaking manoeuver.


----------



## PK99 (7 Aug 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> Yes another headline written by an idiot. My response is " Yes they should be prosecuted the same as motorists. Thats why they are". The process is exactly the same.



No, they aren't - the chargeable offenses are different, that is the whole point!


----------



## steveindenmark (7 Aug 2022)

PK99 said:


> No, they aren't - the chargeable offenses are different, that is the whole point!



But the process is the same. The offences will always read different. But I agree the basic sentence needs to be standard and greater than it is now.


----------



## DRM (7 Aug 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> This animosity is recipricated by the cycling community. It certainly is not one way.
> 
> It just goes round and round in circles. Pointlessly. Until someone steps out of the circle nothing will be solved.
> 
> ...



I think the problem here isn’t death by cyclists, they are very few and very rare, yet motorists go round killing & maiming with barely a slap on the wrist, I believe it’s around 1850 per year killed, or 5 people per day according to the organisation brake, if you search for the number of people killed by cyclists google doesn’t even bring up a figure, perhaps someone here knows, yet it says in 2020 146 cyclists were killed, 4215 were seriously injured, and 11,938 slightly injured, an horrific toll, yet the cause of these figures get away lightly, the driving standards in the UK are appalling, there are no traffic police any more, just armed response vehicles, no wonder drivers get away with murder, quite literally


----------



## numbnuts (7 Aug 2022)

Another one near me - hit and run, how can anyone just leave a man to die
https://geotvnews.com/an-eastleigh-...nd-on-the-verge-of-a-crash-in-upham-gtn-news/


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (7 Aug 2022)

numbnuts said:


> Another one near me - hit and run, how can anyone just leave a man to die
> https://geotvnews.com/an-eastleigh-...nd-on-the-verge-of-a-crash-in-upham-gtn-news/



If it was anywhere like that picture then there was never space to pass anyway - sounds like something deliberate

unless the paper just picked a random place from Street View - or the most dangerous looking


----------



## Phaeton (7 Aug 2022)

DRM said:


> I think the problem here isn’t death by cyclists, they are very few and very rare, yet motorists go round killing & maiming with barely a slap on the wrist, I believe it’s around 1850 per year killed, or 5 people per day according to the organisation brake, if you search for the number of people killed by cyclists google doesn’t even bring up a figure, perhaps someone here knows, yet it says in 2020 146 cyclists were killed, 4215 were seriously injured, and 11,938 slightly injured, an horrific toll, yet the cause of these figures get away lightly, the driving standards in the UK are appalling, there are no traffic police any more, just armed response vehicles, no wonder drivers get away with murder, quite literally


----------



## MontyVeda (7 Aug 2022)

Phaeton said:


> View attachment 656107



I think that chart may be skewed somewhat... maybe to account for attributing cause to the vehicle rather than the road or conditions. .Gov stats for total road deaths in 2019 is far more than the sum of the figures in the 'car' row on that chart.


----------



## Phaeton (7 Aug 2022)

MontyVeda said:


> I think that chart may be skewed somewhat... maybe to account for attributing cause to the vehicle rather than the road or conditions. .Gov stats for total road deaths in 2019 is far more than the sum of the figures in the 'car' row on that chart.


Don't shoot the messenger, it maybe just another poor quality report but it did seem fairly unbiased or if it was it was pro pedestrian, motorcycle, cyclist & anti-car

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money...d-users-statistically-likely-kill-others.html


----------



## BoldonLad (7 Aug 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> I don;t necessarily disagree with the idea but it certainly should not just be for cyclists
> 
> probably anyone using the road, including the pavement, in a reckless manner
> 
> ...



Exactly. The actual effect of the proposed changes, will be just about zero, but, it makes good click-bait.


----------



## BoldonLad (7 Aug 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> Well yes but what about the ones who don't wear a helmet!!!!!
> 
> and they *all* go through red lights!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...



You missed out:

- insurance
- number plates
- tests of ability before using the road
- not using the cycle lanes, provided at great cost for them

I am sure there are more, I will get back to you


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (7 Aug 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> You missed out:
> 
> - insurance
> - number plates
> ...



APologies - I can only type so much BS before my fingers refuse to go further!


----------



## MontyVeda (7 Aug 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Don't shoot the messenger ...


here's another chart from that article...







which seems to have vastly different figures from the same year and source


----------



## DRM (7 Aug 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Exactly. The actual effect of the proposed changes, will be just about zero, but, it makes good click-bait.


that’s right, especially in the fish & chip wrapper it was published in


----------



## Alex321 (7 Aug 2022)

DRM said:


> I think the problem here isn’t death by cyclists, they are very few and very rare, yet motorists go round killing & maiming with barely a slap on the wrist,


That is not "the problem here", it is in fact almost completely irrelevant to the issue here.

The issue here is that the possible sentences for killing somebody by bad driving are much higher than those for killing somebody by bad cycling. How frequent either may be is completely irrelevant to that issue. They should be similar, and that is what is being proposed.



DRM said:


> I believe it’s around 1850 per year killed, or 5 people per day according to the organisation brake, if you search for the number of people killed by cyclists google doesn’t even bring up a figure, perhaps someone here knows, yet it says in 2020 146 cyclists were killed, 4215 were seriously injured, and 11,938 slightly injured, an horrific toll, yet the cause of these figures get away lightly, the driving standards in the UK are appalling, there are no traffic police any more, just armed response vehicles, no wonder drivers get away with murder, quite literally


You may think that driving standards in the UK are appalling, but they are among the best in the world if you look at the actual statistics. There are only a few countries with lower KSI figures per billion vehicle kilometres.


----------



## Stephenite (8 Aug 2022)

Alex321 said:


> That is not "the problem here", it is in fact almost completely irrelevant to the issue here.
> 
> The issue here is that the possible sentences for killing somebody by bad driving are much higher than those for killing somebody by bad cycling. How frequent either may be is completely irrelevant to that issue. They should be similar, and that is what is being proposed.
> 
> ...



Have you considered the concept of _deterrence_ in crime punishment?


----------



## Alex321 (8 Aug 2022)

Stephenite said:


> Have you considered the concept of _deterrence_ in crime punishment?



No, because sentence level doesn't deter.

Plenty of studies have shown that the potential sentence plays very little part in deterring crime, it is the perceived chance of getting caught that makes the main difference.

And I would think it will make even less difference in the case of crimes of negligence or recklessness than it would in deliberate criminal acts. Very few set out with the intention of driving (or cycling) badly enough to cause an accident, still less to kill somebody.


----------



## slowmotion (8 Aug 2022)

I don't see why somebody should get special treatment for killing somebody while riding on two wheels while behaving stupidly and arrogantly. Am I uncool?


----------



## Stephenite (8 Aug 2022)

Alex321 said:


> No, because sentence level doesn't deter.
> 
> Plenty of studies have shown that the potential sentence plays very little part in deterring crime, it is the perceived chance of getting caught that makes the main difference.
> 
> And I would think it will make even less difference in the case of crimes of negligence or recklessness than it would in deliberate criminal acts. Very few set out with the intention of driving (or cycling) badly enough to cause an accident, still less to kill somebody.



It’s getting late, but I’ll have to take you up on your last sentence. There are many who set out to drive each and every day in the full knowledge they will be using their mobile phones for texting, calling, catching up on fb, insta, snap, etc., and playing games.


----------



## Phaeton (8 Aug 2022)

Stephenite said:


> It’s getting late, but I’ll have to take you up on your last sentence. There are many who set out to drive each and every day in the full knowledge they will be using their mobile phones for texting, calling, catching up on fb, insta, snap, etc., and playing games.



But they also know that the chances of being caught are minuscule, along with the fact they know in their own mind that they will never have an accident or cause one because it is perfectly safe what they are doing


----------



## Alex321 (8 Aug 2022)

Stephenite said:


> It’s getting late, but I’ll have to take you up on your last sentence. There are many who set out to drive each and every day in the full knowledge they will be using their mobile phones for texting, calling, catching up on fb, insta, snap, etc., and playing games.



They believe (wrongly) that they can do that without risking an accident. I stand by what I said. Very few (if any) deliberately set out to drive in a way which *they believe* makes them unsafe on the road.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (8 Aug 2022)

Alex321 said:


> They believe (wrongly) that they can do that without risking an accident. I stand by what I said. Very few (if any) deliberately set out to drive in a way which *they believe* makes them unsafe on the road.



...as opposed to their knowing that they really shouldn't be doing it - which each and every one does.

ETA
We have a lot of horse texting hereabouts. Not sure what I feel about that tbh!


----------



## SpokeyDokey (8 Aug 2022)

Whatever the cause, if the outcome is the same then the penalty should be the same.

Not sure how that can be argued with.


----------



## Mo1959 (8 Aug 2022)

Bonefish Blues said:


> We have a lot of horse texting hereabouts. Not sure what I feel about that tbh!


----------



## Bonefish Blues (8 Aug 2022)

Mo1959 said:


> View attachment 656301



You silly filly Mo!


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (8 Aug 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Whatever the cause, if the outcome is the same then the penalty should be the same.
> 
> Not sure how that can be argued with.



My only argument is making it specific to cyclists - include all road users and you automatically include people on e.g. escooters
if you don't then if/when someone dies due to some moron flying round pavements on an escooter then only the old laws will apply

I think - that may only apply to the legal ones - maybe


----------



## roubaixtuesday (8 Aug 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Whatever the cause, if the outcome is the same then the penalty should be the same.
> 
> Not sure how that can be argued with.



I think the degree of recklessness comes into it. 

For instance, if you're in charge of a nuclear power station, turn off the safety systems and induce a meltdown, killing one person in the process, you might expect a harsher sentence than if you ride a fixie without brakes on a pavement and kill a pedestrian.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (8 Aug 2022)

How do you measure recklessness?

It could possibly be argued that you would have to be very reckless to kill a pedestrian as a cyclist and not very reckless at all to kill someone as a driver.

I guess this could eventually come down to semantics so I'm going to stick with same outcome equals same penalty as each life lost has an equal value.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (8 Aug 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> How do you measure recklessness?
> 
> It could possibly be argued that you would have to be very reckless to kill a pedestrian as a cyclist and not very reckless at all to kill someone as a driver.
> 
> I guess this could eventually come down to semantics so I'm going to stick with same outcome equals same penalty as each life lost has an equal value.



We differentiate between motives in sentencing: murder and manslaughter. 

Within manslaughter we differentiate massively according to circumstance, even though the outcome (death) is the same. Sentences from essentially nothing to life imprisonment are possible.

Don't have time now to look, but there is sentencing guidance for manslaughter. 

The legal system does differentiate sentence enormously within the same outcome.


----------



## Poacher (8 Aug 2022)

DRM said:


> that’s right, especially in the fish & chip wrapper it was published in



Point of order, m'lud, use of the DM for wrapping fish and chips was made illegal by the Food Safety Act 1990, due the toxicity of its contents.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (8 Aug 2022)

Poacher said:


> Point of order, m'lud, use of the DM for wrapping fish and chips was made illegal by the Food Safety Act 1990, due the toxicity of its contents.



Bile's a pretty potent chemical, you're right.


----------



## Poacher (8 Aug 2022)

roubaixtuesday said:


> I think the degree of recklessness comes into it.
> 
> For instance, if you're in charge of a nuclear power station, turn off the safety systems and induce a meltdown, killing one person in the process, you might expect a harsher sentence than if you *ride a fixie without brakes on a pavement and kill a pedestrian*.


If that's a reference to the Charlie Alliston case, can I just point out that Kim Briggs was crossing Old Street paying more attention to her phone than her surroundings. I'm not defending the cyclist, who was an arrogant prat and fully deserved jail time, but let's not repeat the lies of the DM and other rags. Apologies if this was a possible scenario rather than a reference!


----------



## roubaixtuesday (8 Aug 2022)

Poacher said:


> If that's a reference to the Charlie Alliston case



It wasn't!


----------



## Profpointy (8 Aug 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Whatever the cause, if the outcome is the same then the penalty should be the same.
> 
> Not sure how that can be argued with.



Surely there's a huge difference according the intention and degree of recklessness

A friend of a friend quite accidentally barged into an old gentleman knocking him over and the guys subsequently died.

At the other extreme you have wilful murder.

Or even an the moderate end of things there's a difference between a mistake and drunk driving, with road rage incidents arguably worse still.


----------



## Alex321 (8 Aug 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Whatever the cause, if the outcome is the same then the penalty should be the same.
> 
> Not sure how that can be argued with.



It can easily be argued with.

If the outcome is the same and the wilfulness/recklessness of the cause was similar, then the sentence should be similar.

Murder/Manslaughter/Causing death by dangerous driving/Causing death by careless driving. All have the same outcome - somebody is dead. But sentences (and the possible range of sentences) vary wildly between those different causes.

Intent plays a very large part, not just outcome.

I agree that if death is caused by serious error on your part, then it shouldn't make any difference to the sentence whether it was a car you were driving, or a bike you were riding at the time.


----------



## iluvmybike (8 Aug 2022)

DRM said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62444889
> The government are now saying killer cyclists should be jailed for longer, don’t they need to sort out carp drivers first, I wonder what the numbers are in comparison between drivers that kill, and cyclists that hit and kill someone, seems to be Grant Chapps spouting off in the Daily Fail where this has come from



From what I read about 470 pedestrians were killed last year - only a couple were due to a collision with a bicycle


----------



## DRM (8 Aug 2022)

iluvmybike said:


> From what I read about 470 pedestrians were killed last year - only a couple were due to a collision with a bicycle



Sounds right a search on Google doesn’t even bring up a figure, I was only able to recall 2 incidents myself


----------



## DRM (8 Aug 2022)

Poacher said:


> Point of order, m'lud, use of the DM for wrapping fish and chips was made illegal by the Food Safety Act 1990, due the toxicity of its contents.



Shame, would have been ideal as an aid to weight loss


----------



## DRM (8 Aug 2022)

Alex321 said:


> That is not "the problem here", it is in fact almost completely irrelevant to the issue here.
> 
> The issue here is that the possible sentences for killing somebody by bad driving are much higher than those for killing somebody by bad cycling. How frequent either may be is completely irrelevant to that issue. They should be similar, and that is what is being proposed.
> 
> ...



I don’t think driving standards are bad, I KNOW they’re bad, the amount of stupid stunts that I see daily are beyond belief, cutting across 5 lanes to get to the A1 South, texting, phones clamped to ears, one clown reading a book, aggressive tailgating, I could go on and on, there’s no Police Motorway patrol vehicles, we seem to have established 2 pedestrians killed by cyclists, 1 of them was paying more attention to her phone than the act of crossing the road, yet 1850 were killed by drivers, that’s the real problem that needs addressing , not cyclists, makes me wonder what the government was burying whilst this carp was being printed


----------



## Alex321 (8 Aug 2022)

DRM said:


> I don’t think driving standards are bad, I KNOW they’re bad, the amount of stupid stunts that I see daily are beyond belief, cutting across 5 lanes to get to the A1 South, texting, phones clamped to ears, one clown reading a book, aggressive tailgating, I could go on and on, there’s no Police Motorway patrol vehicles,



You think driving standards are bad - because you notice the exceptions. Whatever you think, statistics tell us otherwise.




DRM said:


> we seem to have established 2 pedestrians killed by cyclists, 1 of them was paying more attention to her phone than the act of crossing the road, yet 1850 were killed by drivers, that’s the real problem that needs addressing , not cyclists, makes me wonder what the government was burying whilst this carp was being printed



So can you explain your reasoning as to why you believe sentences should be lower just because the crime is less prevalent? I genuinely don't understand why you believe this.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Aug 2022)

Alex321 said:


> You think driving standards are bad - because you notice the exceptions. Whatever you think, statistics tell us otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That isn't why this is being introduced. One might reasonably argue that treatment of cyclists who cause death is already more severe than for motorists. The last such case I recall from a few years back for instance. The cyclist was sent to prison, probably rightly, but it's hard to imagine a driver being even convicted of a much lesser offence in the same circumstances. 

The point of the proposal is to demonise cyclists and pander to right wing gammons' anger against an "out" group. Many of us here have been deliberately driven at, and such things are rarely treated as serious assault. Fanning the flames of such hatred is grossly irresponsible. Calling for murder of cyclists is common in the media "because it's just a joke innit" Encouraging such attitudes, deliberately inflaming them, is a cynical ploy and will cost lives. It's not as if it has emerged as part of a general tidy up of road law, it's carefully targetted.


----------



## DRM (8 Aug 2022)

Alex321 said:


> You think driving standards are bad - because you notice the exceptions. Whatever you think, statistics tell us otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where have I said sentences should be lower, if some one aggressively rides a bike and kills somebody then they deserve everything that’s coming their way, my point is that motor vehicles are the real cause of the problem, not cyclists 2 deaths v 1850, as many have said previously in jest the best way to bump some one off is simply hit them with a car, yet sadly there’s an element of truth in that, my take on this rubbish headline is that the government are spouting bile about a non story in order to cover something up , probably something that’s not getting reported that the PM candidates have done or said, all badly reported where it’ll get the most attention, so in that respect it’s worked, it’s just been a cut & paste job in other news outlets, no one has called it out for the BS it is.


----------



## DRM (8 Aug 2022)

Profpointy said:


> That isn't why this is being introduced. One might reasonably argue that treatment of cyclists who cause death is already more severe than for motorists. The last such case I recall from a few years back for instance. The cyclist was sent to prison, probably rightly, but it's hard to imagine a driver being even convicted of a much lesser offence in the same circumstances.
> 
> The point of the proposal is to demonise cyclists and pander to right wing gammons' anger against an "out" group. Many of us here have been deliberately driven at, and such things are rarely treated as serious assault. Fanning the flames of such hatred is grossly irresponsible. Calling for murder of cyclists is common in the media "because it's just a joke innit" Encouraging such attitudes, deliberately inflaming them, is a cynical ploy and will cost lives. It's not as if it has emerged as part of a general tidy up of road law, it's carefully targetted.



Thanks, that’s my take, just put more eloquently.


----------



## Alex321 (8 Aug 2022)

DRM said:


> Where have I said sentences should be lower,


Because you keep saying they shouldn't be making this change.

And all this change is doing is bringing sentences into line. They are currently lower.,




DRM said:


> if some one aggressively rides a bike and kills somebody then they deserve everything that’s coming their way, my point is that motor vehicles are the real cause of the problem, not cyclists 2 deaths v 1850, as many have said previously in jest the best way to bump some one off is simply hit them with a car, yet sadly there’s an element of truth in that, my take on this rubbish headline is that the government are spouting bile about a non story in order to cover something up , probably something that’s not getting reported that the PM candidates have done or said, all badly reported where it’ll get the most attention, so in that respect it’s worked, it’s just been a cut & paste job in other news outlets, no one has called it out for the BS it is.


Your "point" is almost completely irrelevant.


----------



## Alex321 (8 Aug 2022)

Profpointy said:


> That isn't why this is being introduced.


What isn't?

The post you are responding to said nothing about why it is being introduced, so I have no idea what it is that you saying isn't.



Profpointy said:


> One might reasonably argue that treatment of cyclists who cause death is already more severe than for motorists.



If you think 2 years is more severe than 5, then you can. Otherwise I don't see how.



Profpointy said:


> The last such case I recall from a few years back for instance. The cyclist was sent to prison, probably rightly, but it's hard to imagine a driver being even convicted of a much lesser offence in the same circumstances.



Why do you find that hard to imagine? Drivers are sent to prison for causing death by dangerous driving, and have been for years. And since the charge of causing death by careless driving was introduced, drivers have been sent to prison for that as well.

I'm not sure why you find it hard to imagine that would happen when it actually does happen.




Profpointy said:


> The point of the proposal is to demonise cyclists and pander to right wing gammons' anger against an "out" group. Many of us here have been deliberately driven at, and such things are rarely treated as serious assault. Fanning the flames of such hatred is grossly irresponsible. Calling for murder of cyclists is common in the media "because it's just a joke innit" Encouraging such attitudes, deliberately inflaming them, is a cynical ploy and will cost lives. It's not as if it has emerged as part of a general tidy up of road law, it's carefully targetted.



It is "targeted" at making it a similar sentence for a similar crime.


----------



## Solocle (9 Aug 2022)

Alex321 said:


> What isn't?
> 
> The post you are responding to said nothing about why it is being introduced, so I have no idea what it is that you saying isn't.
> 
> ...



It's only more severe if that sentence is actually handed out.

Causing death by careless driving often gives only a suspended sentence.
https://metro.co.uk/2021/04/23/grie...t-show-as-killer-driver-spared-jail-14461766/


----------



## Alex321 (9 Aug 2022)

Solocle said:


> It's only more severe if that sentence is actually handed out.
> 
> Causing death by careless driving often gives only a suspended sentence.
> https://metro.co.uk/2021/04/23/grie...t-show-as-killer-driver-spared-jail-14461766/



I'm not sure it is "often" a suspended sentence. But agreed that maximum sentences are hardly ever handed out - but that is true for most crimes which have a range of possible sentences.

But I saw statistics recently, which showed that the average sentence for causing death by careless driving (max 5 years) is about 2 years. For causing death by dangerous driving (max 14 years until April 2022, when it went up to life) it was 5 years.


----------



## DRM (9 Aug 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Because you keep saying they shouldn't be making this change.
> 
> And all this change is doing is bringing sentences into line. They are currently lower.,
> 
> ...



No it’s not, if there was a similar number of deaths cased by cyclists as for motorists then fair enough, but it’s hardly a case for this clamp down, if it ever happens, 2 deaths we know of, and google doesn’t even bring up a figure, yet 1850 pedestrians per year at the hands of motorists, I believe this is just a distraction by a government that is currently eating itself alive.


----------



## PK99 (9 Aug 2022)

DRM said:


> No it’s not, if there was a similar number of deaths cased by cyclists as for motorists then fair enough, but it’s hardly a case for this clamp down, if it ever happens, 2 deaths we know of, and google doesn’t even bring up a figure, yet 1850 pedestrians per year at the hands of motorists, I believe this is just a distraction by a government that is currently eating itself alive.



Google is rather more helpful than you suggest: 
"how many pedestrians are killed by cyclists each year UK"


First result:
https://www.jerseyeveningpost.com/m...ches-all-time-high-government-figures-reveal/
_Statistics from the Department for Transport (Dft) showed that 531 people were involved in incidents with cyclists last year – 15 per cent up on 2016 and the highest since recording collisions involving bike riders was introduced in 2013. Of those involved in collisions, three were killed and 120 seriously injured._

ie 3 killed and 120 seriously injured in 2016

A little further down the reusts list:


And:
https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...alties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2020-data

From the report referenced in that link
_In 2019, five pedestrian deaths involved a bicycle.





_


----------



## Alex321 (9 Aug 2022)

DRM said:


> No it’s not, if there was a similar number of deaths cased by cyclists as for motorists then fair enough, but it’s hardly a case for this clamp down, if it ever happens, 2 deaths we know of, and google doesn’t even bring up a figure, yet 1850 pedestrians per year at the hands of motorists, I believe this is just a distraction by a government that is currently eating itself alive.



You keep on about the numbers.

That is pretty well completely irrelevant.

All the change is doing is making sure that the range of sentences available for causing death by dangerous cycling is similar to the range for causing death by dangerous driving.

At present, the law means that regardless of how rare it is, any cyclist causing death by dangerous cycling CANNOT be sentenced to as much as a driver can for causing death by careless driving (never mind causing death by dangerous driving).

If you think they should not be introducing this change, then yiou think it is correct that cyclists should not get similar sentences. Why do you think that?


----------



## Solocle (9 Aug 2022)

Alex321 said:


> You keep on about the numbers.
> 
> That is pretty well completely irrelevant.
> 
> ...



The highway code Rule H1 says this:
_But those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others._

Alliston was charged with manslaughter, although acquitted on that count. How often is it that a driver gets charged with manslaughter?

The legislative time wasted on this pandering to the Daily Mail crowd would be far better spent on measures to actually improve road safety.


----------



## T4tomo (9 Aug 2022)

Solocle said:


> The highway code Rule H1 says this:
> _But those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others._
> 
> Alliston was charged with manslaughter, although acquitted on that count. How often is it that a driver gets charged with manslaughter?
> ...



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61940351

just for a bit of balance, we cyclists aren't being unfairly targetted.

Alliston was charged with manslaughter because the only other charge was "wanton or furious driving" an archaic charge, which is why this reform of laws and sentencing is necessary, albeit unlikely to be used much.

if you are prepared to google there are plenty cases of manslaughter and attempted murder charge against vehicle drivers


----------



## Alex321 (9 Aug 2022)

Solocle said:


> The highway code Rule H1 says this:
> _But those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others._
> 
> Alliston was charged with manslaughter, although acquitted on that count. How often is it that a driver gets charged with manslaughter?
> ...



I'm not sure how often a motorist is charged with manslaughter, but it certainly happens
And the CPS guidance on this is here:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-charging

They also changed the law recently (effective from April this year I think) to increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years to life, so making the sentencing range similar to that for manslaughter.


----------



## Dogtrousers (9 Aug 2022)

Solocle said:


> The legislative time wasted on this pandering to the Daily Mail crowd would be far better spent on measures to actually improve road safety.



This. It's just a PR exercise. 

A large number, and I'm going to hazard a guess that it's less than a majority, but a significant minority, of drivers would be very happy for me to be killed while riding my bike, and it's only the fact that it would make a mess of their car and their insurance that keeps them from doing the job themselves. That's the target audience for this.


----------



## Solocle (9 Aug 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I'm not sure how often a motorist is charged with manslaughter, but it certainly happens
> And the CPS guidance on this is here:
> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-charging
> 
> They also changed the law recently (effective from April this year I think) to increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years to life, so making the sentencing range similar to that for manslaughter.



Some data on successful prosecutions.






Of the 1850 road deaths per year, 352 prosecutions. 1 in 5 deaths lead to a prosecution - of which half reach the dangerous driving threshold.

Manslaughter is an option in the most serious dangerous driving cases - out over 150 per year. There was the case recently with the police officer being dragged along that resulted in a manslaughter conviction. But we're talking about a handful of cases.

If treatment was equal, then you might expect one cyclist to be convicted of manslaughter every 100 years.

The resistance to this is because cyclists convicted under the new offences are likely to face tougher sentences than motorists convicted of the same offence, if the state of the justice system is to go by. Even though the highway code apportions greater responsibility to the drivers of motor vehicles.

It's PR with virtually no benefit whatsoever.


----------



## Alex321 (9 Aug 2022)

Solocle said:


> The resistance to this is because cyclists convicted under the new offences are likely to face tougher sentences than motorists convicted of the same offence, if the state of the justice system is to go by.


What makes you believe that?

I don't see any reason to believe sentences will be significantly different.


----------



## Profpointy (9 Aug 2022)

Alex321 said:


> What makes you believe that?
> 
> I don't see any reason to believe sentences will be significantly different.



Have you not followed the relatively recent case where the cyclist in London collided with and killed a pedestrian and got sent to prison for manslaughter. I think it would be at most 50/50 if a motorist would even have been prosecuted for careless driving under the circumstances in question


----------



## Alex321 (9 Aug 2022)

Profpointy said:


> Have you not followed the relatively recent case where the cyclist in London collided with and killed a pedestrian and got sent to prison for manslaughter. I think it would be at most 50/50 if a motorist would even have been prosecuted for careless driving under the circumstances in question



Which case would that be?

I'm not aware of any recently where a cyclist has been convicted of manslaughter. There have been a few where the cyclist was acquitted of manslaughter, but found guilty of "causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving" - which carries a maximum sentence of two years, which is what this is all about.

I'm not aware of any such case where a motorist would not have even been prosecuted for a similar death. All of the cases I am aware of, the motorist would almost certainly have been prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving, never mind careless, since in every case the judge has made remarks such as "you showed a wanton disregard for the risks".


----------



## T4tomo (9 Aug 2022)

Profpointy said:


> I think


I'm not convinced you do, I think you just type....


----------



## PK99 (9 Aug 2022)

Just stumbled across this reputable source of data:

_Between 2005 and 2015, some 32 pedestrians died and 820 suffered serious injuries after colliding with cyclists, according to a report by charity Cycling UK._


----------



## Dogtrousers (9 Aug 2022)

A possibly more sensible use of resources would be to sort out the buggers muddle that is electric bike/scooter regulation legislation and put in place enforcement actions against illegal use.

But that won't trigger the cyclist hating section of the electorate which the sole purpose of this.


----------



## T4tomo (9 Aug 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> But that won't trigger the cyclist hating section of the electorate which the sole purpose of this.



to be honest I don't think we are faraway from escooter-ists being more hated than cyclists.


----------



## DRM (9 Aug 2022)

Alex321 said:


> You keep on about the numbers.
> 
> That is pretty well completely irrelevant.
> 
> ...



Because it’s not a problem, not a blight on society, there aren’t excessive cases, it’s just pointless noise, pandering to the DM’s readership, all it’s succeeding in doing is fuelling the hatred and abuse of people on bikes, if you’re happy to have motorists treat you like a non entity, that it doesn’t matter if they flatten you, because you’re a nobody, a nothing, just a nuisance, then fine, it’s making things worse for cyclists, not levelling anything up, it’s a knee jerk reaction to nothing, if there was loads of pedestrians being killed, fair enough, but there isn’t


----------



## DRM (9 Aug 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> This. It's just a PR exercise.
> 
> A large number, and I'm going to hazard a guess that it's less than a majority, but a significant minority, of drivers would be very happy for me to be killed while riding my bike, and it's only the fact that it would make a mess of their car and their insurance that keeps them from doing the job themselves. That's the target audience for this.



You’ve hit the nail firmly on the head


----------



## PK99 (9 Aug 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> A possibly more sensible use of resources would be to sort out the buggers muddle that is electric bike/scooter regulation legislation and put in place enforcement actions against illegal use.
> 
> But that won't trigger the cyclist hating section of the electorate which the sole purpose of this.



No, it is not the whole purpose of this.

listen to Kim Briggs' widower.

I'm a cyclist and 100% in favour of the proposed equalization of legal responsibilities.


----------



## PK99 (9 Aug 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> A large number, and I'm going to hazard a guess that it's less than a majority, but a significant minority, of drivers would be very happy for me to be killed while riding my bike, and it's only the fact that it would make a mess of their car and their insurance that keeps them from doing the job themselves. That's the target audience for this.



Complete fecking paranoid nonsence.


----------



## Mike_P (9 Aug 2022)

Saturday's Times carried a report on Shapps article in the DM noting a report in 2021 to the Parliament Advisory Council for Transport Safety which had equated each pedestrian killed by a cyclist to 65 by car drivers. The report to the Council had noted 470 incidents of pedestrians being killed in 2019, 305 by car drivers, 51 by HGV drivers and 5 by cyclists. The other 99 are not mentioned. Have to wonder how accurate that is as 5 into 305 goes 61 times not 65. It then continues referring to only seven road deaths being attributable to cyclists in the (unspecified) year compared to 721 being killed by car drivers. That is 103 killings by car drivers to one by a cyclist.


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 Aug 2022)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-62493165

_*Driver spared jail after causing grandad's death in Glasgow*_​​_A driver who killed a grandfather after ploughing into his motorbike has been spared jail._​_Peter Dunnachie admitted causing death by careless driving after hitting Iain Wyatt at a roundabout, near Baillieston, in May 2020._​_Mr Wyatt, a 43-year-old police forensic nurse, suffered a bleed to the brain and a fractured spine._​_Dunnachie, 45, of Rutherglen, South Lanarkshire, was banned from driving for two years and three months._​_He was also ordered to carry out 210 hours of unpaid work and will be tagged for six months, keeping him indoors overnight._​
I'm assuming that sentencing guidelines were followed. When things like this crop up this is generally the explanation, not just a driver being let off, despite what it looks like.

I would like to think that, following Shapps "jail killer cyclists" announcement in the nation's most anti-cycling paper that, once the new legislation is in place that such guidelines would apply equally if the guilty party was a cyclist. I'm probably being a bit optimistic there, though.


----------

