Death by dangerous cycling set to become offence

[Nearly Sane]

Have to admit that I struggle to understand why it's not covered by current laws
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016715

[Maeght]

Good.

[SteveH]

Have to admit that I struggle to understand why it's not covered by current laws.

I'm sure it is. This is just the Tories pandering to anti-cycling bigots with a bit of pointless window-dressing.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sure it is. This is just the Tories pandering to anti-cycling bigots with a bit of pointless window-dressing.

Reading the story of Kim Briggs death and the statements of her husband, I'm not sure that you can claim 'anti cycling bigotry'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41034492

[jeremyp]

Reading the story of Kim Briggs death and the statements of her husband, I'm not sure that you can claim 'anti cycling bigotry'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41034492

The maximum sentence for "furious cycling" is only two years which doesn't seem much for somebody who was riding an illegal (on the public roads) bike and killed a woman as a direct result of that.

I notice that there is a debate going on about floating bus stops and how dangerous they are. It seems to me that the main danger is from cyclists ignoring the road markings

https://x.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194

There seems to be an attitude problem that some cyclists have that makes them think they are above the law and everybody else needs to get out of their way. Hopefully, this will send a message to them that they need to be more considerate.

[SteveH]

The maximum sentence for "furious cycling" is only two years which doesn't seem much for somebody who was riding an illegal (on the public roads) bike and killed a woman as a direct result of that.

If it's fixed-wheel and has one normal brake, it is road-legal. It shouldn't be - all bikes should have two conventional brakes for riding on roads - but it is.
Fun fact - bikes have to have two brakes to be road-legal, but they don't have to be one on each wheel, and trikes often have both of them on the front wheel. Trikes often have three brakes - two normal ones and a parking brake, which stays on until released: useful on hills.

[jeremyp]

If it's fixed-wheel and has one normal brake, it is road-legal.

No. A bike must have two independent braking systems, one operating on the back wheel and one operating on the front wheel. A fixed wheel bike is only legal if its brake is on the front wheel. That was not the case of the man who killed Kim Briggs.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike

[ProfessorDavey]

I notice that there is a debate going on about floating bus stops and how dangerous they are. It seems to me that the main danger is from cyclists ignoring the road markings

https://x.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194

I saw the item on the BBC news about this last night, which was entirely on the risk posed to pedestrians by the design. But there is also a massive risk to cyclists. I regularly use a cycle lane in London which has these floating bus stops and I loath them - in fact enough that I often risk the bus lane and main road traffic rather than have to navigate them as a cyclist.

The main problem is that bus passengers get off their bus onto a pavement and (not unreasonably, the main problem is the design) think it is continuous with the main pavement, not realising that they have to effectively cross a road (the cycle lane) to get to the main pavement. So all too often a pedestrian steps out directly into your path as a cyclist without even a glance to check it is safe. Pedestrians do not have right of way to cross a cycle path (the cyclist has priority) - they need to use exactly the same caution as crossing a normal road.

Interestingly in the BBC news item they showed all sorts of 'near misses' but only one incident of an actual collision - but in that case the fault lay entirely with the pedestrian doing exactly as I indicated above. Given that the tone of the new piece was all about risk to pedestrians you can be sure that had they filmed a collision where the cyclist was at fault that would have gone in the piece.

[ProfessorDavey]

The maximum sentence for "furious cycling" is only two years which doesn't seem much for somebody who was riding an illegal (on the public roads) bike and killed a woman as a direct result of that.

But there other offences that could have been brought into play had the CPS seen fit - most notably manslaughter.

There are all sorts of careless or reckless acts that might cause death or injury (demolishing a tall wall without taking care that people aren't on the other side; failing to maintain a tree where branches may fall on people etc etc) - we don't have specific offences of 'causing death by dangerous chain saw positioning' - no we rely on general laws that allow someone to be prosecuted for acting in a dangerous or careless manner that causes death or injury - including manslaughter when the act itself is either unlawful of itself or gross negligence.

So this does smack of red meat throwing and a solution looking for a problem, given that in the case of Kim Briggs the cyclist was prosecuted, found guilty and jailed. Had the CPS considered the evidence to have been sufficient he could have been charged with manslaughter for which the maximum sentence is life.

[ProfessorDavey]

No. A bike must have two independent braking systems, one operating on the back wheel and one operating on the front wheel. A fixed wheel bike is only legal if its brake is on the front wheel. That was not the case of the man who killed Kim Briggs.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike

That's true.

In a fixed wheel bike - the back wheel is braked by the rider themselves reducing peddling (so no separate brake is required), but there needs to be an independent front wheel brake.

[ProfessorDavey]

Have to admit that I struggle to understand why it's not covered by current laws
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016715

It is covered by existing laws.

[SteveH]

That's true.

In a fixed wheel bike - the back wheel is braked by the rider themselves reducing peddling (so no separate brake is required), but there needs to be an independent front wheel brake.

Two proper brakes should be required on fixies - the fixed wheel is hopeless for braking. I've ridden a fixed-wheel track bike with no other brake at Herne Hill velodrome, and it takes forever to stop by pedalling backwards.

[Nearly Sane]

It is covered by existing laws.

So the presiding judge was wrong?

'Sir Iain told MPs that Mr Briggs' attempt to get a cyclist prosecuted "involved a legal process that was so convoluted and difficult" even the presiding judge raised concerns and said the laws "needed to be addressed".'

[SteveH]

I'd never heard of floating bus-stops before reading this thread. Now I know what they are, I agree that they seem like a pretty dopey idea.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd never heard of floating bus-stops before reading this thread. Now I know what they are, I agree that they seem like a pretty dopey idea.

There is also the 'shit ... that's my bus' syndrome. Where a person on the main pavement realises there bus is at the bus stop and runs straight across the cycle lane, eyes fixed on the bus rather than any cyclists who might, completely legitimately, be using the cycle lane between the two parts of the pavement.

[ProfessorDavey]

So the presiding judge was wrong?

'Sir Iain told MPs that Mr Briggs' attempt to get a cyclist prosecuted "involved a legal process that was so convoluted and difficult" even the presiding judge raised concerns and said the laws "needed to be addressed".'

Hmm ... hardly the most compelling opinion give that the person in question was successfully charged with an offence, successfully prosecuted of that offence and jailed.

And presumably manslaughter was a clear option seeing as that requires either gross negligence or unlawfulness on the basis of the base act - and in this case the base act was unlawful as the bike wasn't legal for road use.

[Nearly Sane]

Hmm ... hardly the most compelling opinion give that the person in question was successfully charged with an offence, successfully prosecuted of that offence and jailed.

And presumably manslaughter was a clear option seeing as that requires either gross negligence or unlawfulness on the basis of the base act - and in this case the base act was unlawful as the bike wasn't legal for road use.

So the presiding judge isn't compelling but random bloke on the Internet is absolutely right. K'

[ProfessorDavey]

So the presiding judge isn't compelling but random bloke on the Internet is absolutely right. K'

Nope neither he nor I are as compelling as the factual evidence - that the person in question was prosecuted, was convicted and did receive a custodial sentence. His opinion would have been far more compelling had it proved not possible to secure a conviction ... but it was.

[ProfessorDavey]

So the presiding judge was wrong?

'Sir Iain told MPs that Mr Briggs' attempt to get a cyclist prosecuted "involved a legal process that was so convoluted and difficult" even the presiding judge raised concerns and said the laws "needed to be addressed".'

Just to be clear - the Sir Iain in question - the person whose quotes you have included (from the BBC article) is Sir Iain Duncan-Smith, not the presiding judge. He, at best, is paraphrasing what the presiding judge may have said.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope neither he nor I are as compelling as then factual evidence - that the person in question was prosecuted, was convicted and did receive a custodial sentence. His opinion would have been far more compelling had it proved not possible to secure a conviction ... but it was.

And yet you don't know what issues with the law he was referring to, you don't know the details of the case. Your assumption that reading a bit about it on here makes you exactly as expert as the presiding judge in the case is almost funny.

I suspect given your knee jerk reaction that the measure, an amendment in a wide ranging bill that may well get cross party support, is somehow 'redmeat' is due to you somehow seeing it as an attack on you as a 'cyclist'. There are not hordes of slavering Conservative pedestrians howling for the blood of cyclists, and it certainly wouldn't be satisfied by a fairly obscure change in a portmanteau bill.

I don't know enough about the details of the law here to say there definitely isn't a problem, and that the presiding judge has queries means I would like to know more. I'm also wondering why we might have legislation on dangerous driving, and whether this is related to similar issues in cases there which were addresses by that being introduced.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to be clear - the Sir Iain in question - the person whose quotes you have included (from the BBC article) is Sir Iain Duncan-Smith, not the presiding judge. He, at best, is paraphrasing what the presiding judge may have said.

Yes, I understand that. But given I don't have a reason to suspect IDS is lying, or misrepresenting the judge, it's still more of an impact in terms of expertise than self appointed random legal expert on a message board.

[SteveH]

Re. floating bus stops:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/may/10/uk-floating-bus-stops-cycle-lanes

[ProfessorDavey]

How on earth was this incident even allowed to come to court - from the evidence this seems to be a clear accident - a tragic accident, but an accident none the less.

https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-not-guilty-causing-pedestrians-death-309391

[ProfessorDavey]

I don’t agree. The cyclist died because of the actions of the pedestrian. There was a case to answer.

I think you are misunderstanding my post.

This isn't about the Auriol Grey, but a more recent case in Oxford. From what I can see the cyclist in question acted exactly as he should have done on a shared path when overtaking more slowly moving pedestrians (moving slowly, making himself known to the pedestrians by ringing a bell). If anything it would appear that the woman herself was most at fault as she moved into the path of the (slowly moving) cyclist.

A tragic accident, but in our rather febrile 'the cyclist must be in the wrong' environment this guy gets hauled into court and charged with an offence that could lead to a jail sentence. Sometimes we need to recognise that accidents happen, and that fatal accidents happen. But just because someone died does not imply that someone was at fault, nor acting in a criminal manner.

[ProfessorDavey]

Is there a "rather febrile 'the cyclist must be in the wrong' environment"?

Absolutely there is - there are the likes of IDS and others pushing for draconian laws to be brought in for cyclists, despite there already being an existing law in place that has been used on more than one occasion in the last couple of years to jail actual dangerous cyclists. And of course deaths involving cyclists are incredibly rare ... or rather they are incredibly rare when the party killed is not the cyclist.

Just look at the earlier media coverage of this case - which was thrown out.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-sent-elderly-woman-catapulting-33197026
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13613217/Cyclist-killed-elderly-woman-crashing-River-Thames-towpath-court-hears.html

Look at the headlines - hardly unbiased reporting when you actually read the evidence of what was a tragic accident.