Death by dangerous cycling set to become offence

[Nearly Sane]

I think moving goalposts is disingenuous.

If you want to discuss the difficulty of convicting dangerous cyclists of cycling dangerously, fine. But you were bringing it up in a desperate attempt to refute PD's obviously true point.

Let me be a bit more constructive: you could have accepted PD's point and then explicitly moved things on by saying something like "OK the law does exist but it's really hard to apply as evidenced by ....".

To move things on, an offence of death by dangerous cycling is probably too narrowly focused. Deaths of pedestrians from cyclists are not that common but there are several hundred injuries every year. If you are a cyclist cycling dangerously and knock somebody over and break their arm, don't you deserve some sort of punishment?

Edit: it was difficult to find stats but this article summarises them quite well

https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycling-and-pedestrians

I think if the presiding judge thinks thers is need for Reform then it raises the question  that the law does nor adequately cover the issue. Prof D is then claiming that tge opinion of the judge was wrong, and then switched to we should assume that IDS is lying about the judge's opinion.

I don't know if the law is adequate. Like Prof D, I'm just a random Internet bloke.

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof D is then claiming that tge opinion of the judge was wrong ...

I'm not claiming any such thing given that neither you nor I have seen the opinion of the judge - rather than a second hand claim from an anti-cyclist campaigner on what the judge may (or may not) have said.

But the facts remain - in this case, and indeed in at least one other I'm aware of, the current law was sufficiently robust for the cyclist to be charged, prosecuted and sentenced. And in both cases the cyclist was also charged (but not found guilty) of manslaughter - and manslaughter has a maximum life sentence.

And if you think the maximum sentencing is too lenient, you can change that - indeed the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving was increased to life just a couple of years ago.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not claiming any such thing given that neither you nor I have seen the opinion of the judge - rather than a second hand claim from an anti-cyclist campaigner on what the judge may (or may not) have said.

But the facts remain - in this case, and indeed in at least one other I'm aware of the current law was sufficiently robust for the cyclist to be charged, prosecuted and sentenced. And in both cases the cyclist was also charged (but not found guilty) of manslaughter - and manslaughter has a maximum life sentence.

And if you think the maximum sentencing is too lenient, you can change that - indeed the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving was increased to life just a couple of years ago.

You think the law does not need changing. The judge appears to disagree. I think it's worth finding put more because you are random bloke on internet. You haven't shown any evidence that IDS is lying, and you haven't dealt with the issue that if he was it would seem likely that the judge might speak up.

I haven't said anything that indicates that I think the maximum sentencing is too lenient so why suggest that?

[ProfessorDavey]

The judge appears to disagree.

FFS NS - we have no idea what the judge thinks as we have nothing from her.

By the way - I've just read the judge's summary remarks on the case and I can't see anything where she indicates that it was difficult to prosecute nor that the law should be changed.

[jeremyp]

I think if the presiding judge thinks thers is need for Reform then it raises the question  that the law does nor adequately cover the issue.

I agree that may be the case.

Prof D is then claiming that tge opinion of the judge was wrong, and then switched to we should assume that IDS is lying about the judge's opinion.

He's not claiming that the opinion of the judge was wrong. He's claiming that Iain Duncan Smith's reporting of the opinion is not reliable.

Given that a cyclist has been convicted and imprisoned there are only three possibilities:

1. You are misinterpreting IDS's words
2. IDS misinterpreted the judge's words
3. The judge is wrong.

Which of those three options do you claim is the case?

Anyway, what do you say to the point that the new law is too narrowly focused. Only about three people die every year following collisions with cyclists but hundreds are injured. Any new law needs to cover injury too IMO.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree that may be the case.
He's not claiming that the opinion of the judge was wrong. He's claiming that Iain Duncan Smith's reporting of the opinion is not reliable.

Given that a cyclist has been convicted and imprisoned there are only three possibilities:

1. You are misinterpreting IDS's words
2. IDS misinterpreted the judge's words
3. The judge is wrong.

Which of those three options do you claim is the case?

Anyway, what do you say to the point that the new law is too narrowly focused. Only about three people die every year following collisions with cyclists but hundreds are injured. Any new law needs to cover injury too IMO.

Those aren't the only three possibilities. It is possible that IDS is interpreting the judge's words correctly. Again  if he isn't why isn't the judge correcting him?

I think that it's worth looking at the law overall to provide clarity if needed, and that it's not just a 'febrile environment' that all cyclists are in the wrong that might prompt that.

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree that may be the case.
He's not claiming that the opinion of the judge was wrong. He's claiming that Iain Duncan Smith's reporting of the opinion is not reliable.

Given that a cyclist has been convicted and imprisoned there are only three possibilities:

1. You are misinterpreting IDS's words
2. IDS misinterpreted the judge's words
3. The judge is wrong.

Which of those three options do you claim is the case?

There are other options - so it might be that from a narrow judge perspective the judiciary might like a change to the law, but that it wouldn't be in the public interest given how few likely cases there would be. I think it is quite likely that the judiciary might like many, many very specific laws for every eventuality, but that this wouldn't work for the broader legal system, nor be in the public interest.

[Nearly Sane]

There are other options - so it might be that from a narrow judge perspective the judiciary might like a change to the law, but that it wouldn't be in the public interest given how few likely cases there would be. I think it is quite likely that the judiciary might like many, many very specific laws for every eventuality, but that this wouldn't work for the broader legal system, nor be in the public interest.

Writes random bloke on internet

[ProfessorDavey]

Anyway, what do you say to the point that the new law is too narrowly focused. Only about three people die every year following collisions with cyclists but hundreds are injured. Any new law needs to cover injury too IMO.

The narrowness of the law is a major criticism for a change in the law. Apparently many, many more pedestrians are killed each year by cattle than by cyclists - should we suggest a 'causing death through not appropriately managing your cattle' law. Probably not as if there is clear negligence then I'm sure there are existing laws that would cover it.

Just for completeness there already are provisions for dangerous, inconsiderate and careless cycling under the 1988 Road Traffic Act - so those would presumably cover injury. The change to the law does specifically seem to be about a single offence of causing death by dangerous cycling (to mirror causing death by dangerous driving). But the latter has a couple of hundred convictions every year - as several thousand people die every year due to road traffic accidents involving driving. At best there might be a couple for the proposed law - but even that assumes that all deaths involving collisions between a cyclist and a pedestrian:

1. Involve the pedestrian dying
2. With the fault lying with the cyclist
3. That the cyclist was acting in a dangerous manner.

And we already have two pieces of legislation where individuals can be charged if those three criteria are met - Wanton and Furious Driving and Manslaughter. And we've seen (proportionately given how few cases there are) more cyclist convicted and jailed per death and car drivers. So it seems the law works.

The one area which might need looking at is maximum sentencing - which is two years for Wanton and Furious Driving, although life for Manslaughter.

But you also must take into account the risk and level of responsibility and accountability when you get on a bike (that weighs a few kg and can probably travel at best 30mph) and when you get in a 1500kg car that can easily travel at 70mph+. The basic risks are not the same - noting that the collision force of a bike travelling at 30mph is probably equivalent to a car travelling at less than walking pace.

[ProfessorDavey]

Writes random bloke on internet

A pretty balanced and thoughtful article from a 'random bloke on the internet', who just happens to be a barrister.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/20/some-thoughts-on-charlie-alliston-and-death-on-the-roads/

[Nearly Sane]

A pretty balanced and thoughtful article from a 'random bloke on the internet', who just happens to be a barrister.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/20/some-thoughts-on-charlie-alliston-and-death-on-the-roads/

I agree it's balanced and thoughtful. I don't think I disagree with any of it.

[jeremyp]

Those aren't the only three possibilities. It is possible that IDS is interpreting the judge's words correctly. Again  if he isn't why isn't the judge correcting him?

I think that it's worth looking at the law overall to provide clarity if needed, and that it's not just a 'febrile environment' that all cyclists are in the wrong that might prompt that.

There are other options - so it might be that from a narrow judge perspective the judiciary might like a change to the law, but that it wouldn't be in the public interest given how few likely cases there would be. I think it is quite likely that the judiciary might like many, many very specific laws for every eventuality, but that this wouldn't work for the broader legal system, nor be in the public interest.

They are the only three options with respect to NS's attempted rebuttal of PD's point. NS quoted IDS to refute PD's point that there is a law that covers death by dangerous cycling. Since a cyclist got convicted of killing a pedestrian, the only options are NS is wrong, IDS is wrong or the judge is wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

They are the only three options with respect to NS's attempted rebuttal of PD's point. NS quoted IDS to refute PD's point that there is a law that covers death by dangerous cycling. Since a cyclist got convicted of killing a pedestrian, the only options are NS is wrong, IDS is wrong or the judge is wrong.

Or you are, and it may well be my fault for not being clear. I highlighted the judge as having concerns that the law had problems in making prosecution very difficult, and that hence the law qas not adequate for what was needed. At no point did I claim, imply, or suggest that prosecutions in individual cases was impossible.

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree it's balanced and thoughtful. I don't think I disagree with any of it.

I think it is easy to a perceived problem and conclude that 'the law must be changed'. But there are a couple of points that I feel must always be considered before taking that step.

1. We've just had the King's Speech setting out a legislative programme for the government - that will all take up limited parliamentary time. So were something else to be slotted in to that programme - because 'the law must be changed', what other piece of legislation should be bumped in order to carve out the parliamentary time. So it becomes about priorities - so perhaps this 'the law must be changed' argument has merit, but potentially it has less merit than changing the law on a range of other matters.

2. Will it actually make a difference - so in this case are there cyclists who had caused death by dangerous cycling who have escaped justice? Now this is the killer point here - I doubt that a change to the law would result in any more cyclists being convicted (unless it is grossly unjust). So to that end a new law will make no difference. There is also the matter of sentencing and perhaps two years maximum is too low, but that can be changed without bring in a completely new law (as indeed happened for dangerous driving in 2022).

Point being that if a new law will not change the number of cyclists convicted because they caused death by dangerous cycling nor their sentencing then we are looking at pure 'tokenism'. I get that those affected will often campaign vociferously and might 'feel better' if 'the law must be changed' comes to fruition but that shouldn't be justification if the revised law makes no difference in practice to who gets convicted and what sentence they serve.

[jeremyp]

Or you are, and it may well be my fault for not being clear. I highlighted the judge as having concerns that the law had problems in making prosecution very difficult, and that hence the law qas not adequate for what was needed. At no point did I claim, imply, or suggest that prosecutions in individual cases was impossible.

You brought it up in your attempt to refute PD's point that there is a law that covers death by dangerous cycling. What were we supposed to think?

[Nearly Sane]

I think it is easy to a perceived problem and conclude that 'the law must be changed'. But there are a couple of points that I feel must always be considered before taking that step.

1. We've just had the King's Speech setting out a legislative programme for the government - that will all take up limited parliamentary time. So were something else to be slotted in to that programme - because 'the law must be changed', what other piece of legislation should be bumped in order to carve out the parliamentary time. So it becomes about priorities - so perhaps this 'the law must be changed' argument has merit, but it has less merit than changing the law on a range of other matters.

2. Will it actually make a difference - so in this case are there cyclists who had caused death by dangerous cycling who have escaped justice. Now this is the killer point here - I doubt that a change to the law would result in any more cyclists being convicted (unless it is grossly unjust). So to that end a new law will make no difference. There is also the matter of sentencing and perhaps two years maximum is too low, but that can be changed without bring in a completely new law (as indeed happened for dangerous driving in 2022).

Point being that if a new law will not change the number of cyclists convicted because they caused death by dangerous cycling nor their sentencing then we are looking at pure 'tokenism'. I get that those affected will often campaign vociferously and might 'feel better' if 'the law must be changed' comes to fruition but that shouldn't be justification if the revised law makes no difference in practice to who gets convicted and what sentence they serve.

I don't disagree about the question of urgency. That doesn't mean that there is no problem or that any attempt to change the legislation is evidence of a 'febrile environment' that cyclists are always in the wrong.


I agree it doesn't need a completely new law, that then though means it might be possible to achieve as an amendment in laws that are going through if there is a sufficient connection. If the law is unclear enough to cause issues in how to prosecute cases, then that seems sufficient reason to update them to me.

And as an aside, it's good to see a programme of legislative change that is as large as yesterday. I suspect that one of the reasons it nearly went through last session is that there was no legislative programme at all as the Tories had given up.

[Nearly Sane]

You brought it up in your attempt to refute PD's point that there is a law that covers death by dangerous cycling. What were we supposed to think?

I brought it up as a question to the idea that the law was fine. If the presiding judge I'm a case is expressing concerns about the process then I think it's worth looking at. 

[ProfessorDavey]

I highlighted the judge as having concerns that the law had problems in making prosecution very difficult ...

Firstly - you never did as you have continually failed to provide any actual evidence that the judge actually said this - indeed it was me you had to point out to you that the claimed quote to this effect was from IDS and not the judge.

Secondly the argument that the current law makes prosecution very difficult seems to fail the test of facts.

There was a review of cycling safety a while ago and that looked back at successful prosecutions resulting in jail under the current law - they cited not just the Alliston case (in 2017), but further successful prosecutions in 2015, 2013, 2009, 2008(x2). So in the previous 9 years there had been at least 6 successful prosecutions where a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian had caused the death of a pedestrian. Yet in that period there would have been perhaps 20 cases of deaths in collisions with cyclists. So that's a successful prosecution rate of the order of 20-30% which is astonishing high and way higher than the successful prosecution rate for causing death by dangerous driving, which is just 10% using the same criterion - successful conviction resulting in jail per death involving a car/cycle.

[ProfessorDavey]

If the presiding judge I'm a case is expressing concerns about the process then I think it's worth looking at.

Firstly you keep making this claim yet you have failed to provide the evidence - merely a quote from IDS.

But secondly, even if a judge did make that claim, that should never be determinative that the law should be changed, for the reasons I've pointed out, specifically:

1. The need to devote parliamentary time to change the law and whether this is the best use of that parliamentary time.

2. Whether a change in the law would actually make any difference in terms of successful prosecution rates (I think given that successful prosecution rates seem very high then that seems unlikely) and sentencing levels and whether this can be achieved more easily through mechanisms that do not require a fundamental change to the law (e.g. changing maximum sentencing under existing laws).

And of course, most fundamentally whether that claim is credible (regardless of who is making that claim) by looking at the facts of conviction rates vs incidents (most of which will, of course be purely accidental and/or never come close to any threshold for criminal liability).

[jeremyp]

I brought it up as a question to the idea that the law was fine.

It is clear that you were trying to refute the assertion that there was a law at all.

[Nearly Sane]

It is clear that you were trying to refute the assertion that there was a law at all.

is it? Where?

[jeremyp]

is it? Where?

Here:

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".'

[Nearly Sane]

Here:
 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".'

That doesn't say that. That raises the idea that that the concerns about how the law works might be valid. Not that there is no law. The OP was already expressing my wonder that the law seemed to cover it but I wasn't sure 

[ProfessorDavey]

That doesn't say that. That raises the idea that that the concerns about how the law works might be valid. Not that there is no law. The OP was already expressing my wonder that the law seemed to cover it but I wasn't sure

And even so the claim seems rather undermined by the evidence.

'Sir Iain told MPs that Mr Briggs' attempt to get a cyclist prosecuted "involved a legal process that was so convoluted and difficult" ..'

Yet the legal process was successful - Alliston was charged (actually charged with two potential offences), was convicted on one charge (Wanton & Furious driving) but acquitted on manslaughter and received a custodial sentence.

And for the record I would hope that all criminal legal processes are thorough and based on the presumption of innocence for the accused with the burden of proof lying with the prosecution. Sure someone who feels they are the victim of a crime might want the accused convicted and locked up easily - that is an understandable response. But the legal due process should always prevail even if that seems frustrating for a victim.

[Nearly Sane]

And even so the claim seems rather undermined by the evidence.

'Sir Iain told MPs that Mr Briggs' attempt to get a cyclist prosecuted "involved a legal process that was so convoluted and difficult" ..'

Yet the legal process was successful - Alliston was charged (actually charged with two potential offences), was convicted on one charge (Wanton & Furious driving) but acquitted on manslaughter and received a custodial sentence.

And for the record I would hope that all criminal legal processes are thorough and based on the presumption of innocence for the accused with the burden of proof lying with the prosecution. Sure someone who feels they are the victim of a crime might want the accused convicted and locked up easily - that is an understandable response. But the legal due process should always prevail even if that seems frustrating for a victim.

Where's the evidence that what was being sought was to reduce the criminal proceedings being thorough?