New offences for cyclists/cycling

[Dogtrousers]

It strikes me that this whole thing has a tang of London -centricity about it since a lot of the cyclist hate thing is a lot less pronounced in other parts of the country. For most of the population, the Royal Parks situation is virtually meaningless.

I think the parks are a bit of a red herring. There are already bylaws that apply there (eg speed limits that do apply to cyclists.

And anyway, for most Londoners the Royal Parks situation is completely meaningless.

 

[Bristolian]

They aren't adding offences, they are changing the potential penalties for committing those offences.

For instance, sections 28 & 29 (cycling dangerously and cycling carelessly or inconsiderately) of the RTA currently carry a sentence of a fine at level 4 in the RTRA. They will now have the option of an education course (presumably similar to the speed awareness course for drivers) or a fixed penalty.

I wonder if the education courses will be done locally so we can all cycle to them

 

[icowden]

I do wonder whether the broadening of offences isn't actually aimed at what we would see as cyclists but to give the Police more options when dealing with scrotes on e-bikes.

 

[Badger_Boom]

I do wonder whether the broadening of offences isn't actually aimed at what we would see as cyclists but to give the Police more options when dealing with scrotes on e-bikes.

Maybe, but why not enact a law to deal with scrotes on e-bikes?

 

[Andy in Germany]

every driver sees dozens of black-clad unlit cyclists

Funny that: they can somehow see black-clad ninjas at night but still manage to crash into lit bikes 24 hours a day...

 

[mjr]

Funny that: they can somehow see black-clad ninjas at night but still manage to drive into lit bikes 24 hours a day...

Not really funny, is it?

 

[matticus]

How about a new specific offence for this:

 

[Alex321]

I do wonder whether the broadening of offences isn't actually aimed at what we would see as cyclists but to give the Police more options when dealing with scrotes on e-bikes.

I don't think so.

There is no broadening of offences anyhow, only a change in the available penalties for existing offences.

And there is no difference in those offences or penalties regarding e-bikes. The non-conformant ones don't even count as bicycles in law, they class as unregistered/untaxed/uninsured motorbikes.

 

[Alex321]

How about a new specific offence for this:

View attachment 760748

Any hints as to what that offence might be?

And why do you feel it might be necessary - Causing death by dangerous driving already carries very similar sentencing to manslaughter (as it should, since that is what it really is).

IF the driver's claims are true (big IF - which is probably why the re-arrest), then how on earth can you make having an epileptic seizure for the first time into an offence?

Regardless of any other penalties, if she had an epileptic seizure, then she automatically loses her licence, and will not get it back unless and until a doctor certifies that there is no danger of further seizures.

 

[PK99]

M

How about a new specific offence for this:

View attachment 760748

What specific offence do you have in mind?

 

[classic33]

Any hints as to what that offence might be?

And why do you feel it might be necessary - Causing death by dangerous driving already carries very similar sentencing to manslaughter (as it should, since that is what it really is).

IF the driver's claims are true (big IF - which is probably why the re-arrest), then how on earth can you make having an epileptic seizure for the first time into an offence?

Regardless of any other penalties, if she had an epileptic seizure, then she automatically loses her licence, and will not get it back unless and until a doctor certifies that there is no danger of further seizures.

Not true, in the UK at least.
Not all fits/seizures are as a result of epilepsy.
One fit/seizure due to a head injury, with no previous diagnosis of epilepsy will result in you having to surrender your licence.
A year seizure free, whilst awake, and you can re-apply for your licence. The doctor/specialist will certify that you have been seizure free for the year. Not that there is no chance of any further ones.
No doctor, or specialist, can ever say there is no chance of further seizures. Nor would they.
Seizures need to be under control, medication or otherwise, or occur only when your asleep.

 

[matticus]

Any hints as to what that offence might be?

And why do you feel it might be necessary - Causing death by dangerous driving already carries very similar sentencing to manslaughter (as it should, since that is what it really is).

I was thinking
"Killing two small children many metres from a roadway in a built-up area."

(Nothing to do with seizures.)

I should have spelt this out more clearly:
This killing IS covered by existing offences- just as the "new" cycling offences are.

So a new law would be a valuable way to highlight the horrendous outcomes of negligent vehicle use, potentially saving many young lives - or maybe the suggestion is just satire/ranting. You choose!

 

[PK99]

I was thinking
"Killing two small children many metres from a roadway in a built-up area."

You clearly write from prejudice with very littel knowledge of the area. The school is the bottom RH corner building site a few years ago.

 

[mjr]

View attachment 760908





You clearly write from prejudice with very littel knowledge of the area. The school is the bottom RH corner building site a few years ago.

Which part of the description are you objecting to, caller? It may be the edge of the built-up area, but it looks to be in it, not an isolated building by a 60-mph road.

 

[PK99]

Which part of the description are you objecting to, caller? It may be the edge of the built-up area, but it looks to be in it, not an isolated building by a 60-mph road.

It is not many meters from a roadway - it is immediatle adjacent the road.

It is not in a built-up area - the green golfer symbol is at the accident site.