Killer cyclists

[DRM]

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]

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.


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.

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]

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.

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]

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




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.

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]

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




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.

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]

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]

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.,

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.



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



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.




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

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]

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]

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.,



Your "point" is almost completely irrelevant.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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