Independent front page story on cycle deaths...

[30yroldclunker]

in the online edition anyway. Good to see this getting some momentum after the recent tragedies. One thing that struck me though was the sudden seemingly random line at the end...

"The Government confirmed this week it is considering the introduction of a new criminal offence of causing death by dangerous cycling following concerns that there is no legislation to deal with riders whose reckless behaviour leads to fatalities."

Bit odd that in the context of the article being about cyclists being killed by reckless truck drivers...


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...aths-to-be-stemmed-2268135.html#disqus_thread

 

[asterix]

The 'random line' serves to illustrate that politics is all about satisfying idiot Daily Mail readers rather than dealing with the real life issue.

On average, 28 cyclists are now killed in collisions with HGVs every year across the UK.

However,

To support 'The Independent's' campaign for safer cycling, send your stories and suggestions to cyclists@independent.co.uk

 

[ianrauk]

[QUOTE 1367754"]
..though I'd love to have a bit more of an explanation on this comment-

The police should stop any cyclists with cut down handle bars that are so common in London.
[/quote]

Have to agree with that. Along with stopping those whose jeans are so low that they are showing their pants and arse crack... bloody fakengers.

 

[buddha]

[QUOTE 1367754"]
..though I'd love to have a bit more of an explanation on this comment-

The police should stop any cyclists with cut down handle bars that are so common in London.
[/quote]
They probably meant to say 'Fashion Police'.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

"The Government confirmed this week it is considering the introduction of a new criminal offence of causing death by dangerous cycling following concerns that there is no legislation to deal with riders whose reckless behaviour leads to fatalities."

How ridiculous (assuming it is true).

The 2009 accident figures show that, in single vehicle incidents, 261 pedestrians were hit by bicycles and none of these were killed, whilst 18,089 were hit by cars, and 221 of these were killed.

In incidents involving two vehicles, 17 pedestrians were hit by bicycles and two of these were killed; one of these involved a bus and the other involved another unspecified vehicle. Also in two vehicle incidents, 1,185 pedestrians were hit by cars, and 41 of those were killed; bicycles were involved in 18 of those 1,185 incidents but none of the ones that caused a pedestrian to be killed.

Exactly what problem would this new criminal offence be intended to solve?

 

[psmiffy]

How ridiculous (assuming it is true).

The 2009 accident figures show that, in single vehicle incidents, 261 pedestrians were hit by bicycles and none of these were killed, whilst 18,089 were hit by cars, and 221 of these were killed.

In incidents involving two vehicles, 17 pedestrians were hit by bicycles and two of these were killed; one of these involved a bus and the other involved another unspecified vehicle. Also in two vehicle incidents, 1,185 pedestrians were hit by cars, and 41 of those were killed; bicycles were involved in 18 of those 1,185 incidents but none of the ones that caused a pedestrian to be killed.

Exactly what problem would this new criminal offence be intended to solve?

I cannot find the figures - but I always find that the number of pedestrians that were killed by cars while on the pavement is the interesting statistic.

The bill itself is not relavant - the offense maybe trotted out to be used every couple of years or more - except maybe to publicise to people that do ride on the pavement or recklessly that there are consequences - personally I would of liked the time allocated to debating this subject in Parliment to be better used to discus how to protect cyclists more.

I am somewhat dubious of the MPs motivation for promoting the bill - but will give her the benifit of the doubt that she is acting to right a wrong for one of her constituents

 

[mr_cellophane]

The 'random line' serves to illustrate that politics is all about satisfying idiot Daily Mail readers rather than dealing with the real life issue.

How many people read both the Mail and Independent ?

 

[Davidc]

How many people read both the Mail and Independent ?

I look at both of the online ones if I have time.

The Independent for imformation, the Mail to see what the bigots of Britain are thinking. (And of course to see where government policy will be going next).

 

[yello]

"The Government confirmed this week it is considering the introduction of a new criminal offence of causing death by dangerous cycling following concerns that there is no legislation to deal with riders whose reckless behaviour leads to fatalities."

I thought there were laws already that dealt with people being killed by others. Do we really need them to deal with HOW they are killed? Does that mean I can walk, scott-free if I kill someone in some new and creative way not covered by statute?

 

[xpc316e]

The article makes a number of demands in its summing up, but I find it curious that nearly all of the deaths/serious injuries could have been prevented if the riders had stayed well away from the larger vehicles in the first place. Just what is it about many cyclists that makes them think that they are immortal? I agree that many drivers of larger vehicles have skills that leave something to be desired, but it is a difficult task to drive a big vehicle in London, and a healthy dose of fear on the part of cyclists would not go amiss.

 

[Molecule Man]

BBC Radio 4 just trailed an upcoming news piece on the World at One (on now until 1:30), asking if 'White van man or lycra louts are to blame for cyclist deaths'.

I just wrote what I think is my first complaint to the BBC.

That is so disrespectful to those who have died.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

BBC Radio 4 just trailed an upcoming news piece on the World at One (on now until 1:30), asking if 'White van man or lycra louts are to blame for cyclist deaths'.

I just wrote what I think is my first complaint to the BBC.

That is so disrespectful to those who have died.

It was rather flippant wasn't it

 

[Doctor Cake]

Yesterday's Evening Standard had a story about Ghost Bikes in London.

A car rolls up to the crossing in the right-hand lane, and makes a sudden decision to hop lanes and turn left - too late to clock the cyclist on his inside - and suddenly there is a screech of tyres, a bang as the cyclist hits the car

A lorry attempted to turn left from the right-hand lane, didn't see Dan in his blind spot, and knocked him off his bike, crushing him under its wheels.

I think it's wise practice to not filter up the left hand side of stationary lorries at lights and to try to minimise your chances of being left-hooked by cycling defensively, but if are in your lane and suddenly someone pulls into you because they haven't bothered to look and haven't indicated, there is not a whole lot you can do unfortunately.

 

[Origamist]

The article makes a number of demands in its summing up, but I find it curious that nearly all of the deaths/serious injuries could have been prevented if the riders had stayed well away from the larger vehicles in the first place. Just what is it about many cyclists that makes them think that they are immortal? I agree that many drivers of larger vehicles have skills that leave something to be desired, but it is a difficult task to drive a big vehicle in London, and a healthy dose of fear on the part of cyclists would not go amiss.

I take it you must have unfettered access to the crime scene investigation files held by the police? I'd also hazard that you've consulted the coroners' reports into the deaths of the cyclists concerned - as this is the only way you could make such a sweeping statement (unless, of course, you're regurgitating titbits you've read in the press and are merely drawing your own jaundiced conclusions from limited source material).

 

[cyberknight]

All these deaths are heart wrenching and we cannot say whether they were avoidable based on a snippet in the paper but when the driver is clearly at fault then the only way to make drivers think about their actions is to make the sentencing reflect the crime as the current sentences handed out are laughable.

Untill they are sentenced as if they had caused manslaughter in the very least when it can be proven that the driver was completely at fault then it will continue.

Lock them up for a long time and never allow them to drive again to me is the only way to deal with them , any amount of training goes out of the window and speed limits are ignored by a good majority of drivers who consider themselves good drives but are in fact a danger on the road.

I had an altercation with a dangerous driver and he thought he was a good driver because he was insured ....