Death by dangerous cycling set to become offence

[ProfessorDavey]

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

Right back at you.

Where is the evidence that the current process is 'convoluted and difficult' - noting that in this case the individual was successfully prosecuted, convicted and received a custodial sentence.

And that the 'conviction rate with custodial sentence' for cyclists involved in an accident resulting in the death of another road user is higher than for car drivers and massively higher than for spiking incidents.

If the process is so 'convoluted and difficult' how come conviction rates are so high.

[Nearly Sane]

Right back at you.

Where is the evidence that the current process is 'convoluted and difficult' - noting that in this case the individual was successfully prosecuted, convicted and received a custodial sentence.

And that the 'conviction rate with custodial sentence' for cyclists involved in an accident resulting in the death of another road user is higher than for car drivers and massively higher than for spiking incidents.

If the process is so 'convoluted and difficult' how come conviction rates are so high.

I've cited IDS's statement about the judge, and that the judge has not challenged them. Thar's not sufficient for you but was already covered. And that it made it worth lookung at not that it was true. So where's your evidence for your claim, rather than indulging in whataboutery?

[ProfessorDavey]

I've cited IDS's statement about the judge, and that the judge has not challenged them. Thar's not sufficient for you but was already covered. So where's your evidence for your claim, rather than indulging in whataboutery?

Yawn - we've been through this ad nauseam.

I'd rather rely on facts - e.g. rates of incidents, rates of convictions etc to determine whether it is difficult to gain prosecutions in particular types of cases rather than the opinions of a right wing ex-tory leader.

So where is your evidence that dangerous cyclists are killing people and 'getting away with it'? I can see absolutely no evidence to support this notion, which would be the clear outcome if the legal process was too difficult to get prosecutions. But of course in the real world (rather than in IDS's head), it isn't.

[Nearly Sane]

Yawn - we've been through this ad nauseam.

I'd rather rely on facts - e.g. rates of incidents, rates of convictions etc to determine whether it is difficult to gain prosecutions in particular types of cases rather than the opinions of a right wing ex-tory leader.

So where is your evidence that dangerous cyclists are killing people and 'getting away with it'? I can see absolutely no evidence to support this notion, which would be the clear outcome if the legal process was too difficult to get prosecutions. But of course in the real world (rather than in IDS's head), it isn't.

I haven't claimed cyclists are killing people and getting away with it, so if you are so keen on facts that's not a great look.

And nice attempt at evasion from your implication that this was about trying to reduce the thoroughness of the judicial process. Got any facts about that?

[ProfessorDavey]

I haven't claimed cyclists are killing people and getting away with it ...

But that would be the obvious conclusion if the current legal process was too difficult and convoluted to get a prosecution. So if you don't think there are cyclists killing people and 'getting away with it' then presumably you accept that the current law is not too difficult and convoluted to get a prosecution.

And if there aren't cyclists killing people and 'getting away with it' then why on earth would you think there is a need to change the law.

You are a bit all over the place NS.

[Nearly Sane]

But that would be the obvious conclusion if the current legal process was too difficult and convoluted to get a prosecution. So if you don't think there are cyclists killing people and 'getting away with it' then presumably you accept that the current law is not too difficult and convoluted to get a prosecution.

And if there aren't cyclists killing people and 'getting away with it' then why on earth would you think there is a need to change the law.

You are a bit all over the place NS.

No, the obvious conclusion with the judge in a case where the cyclist was prosecuted but where according to IDS they said, and they haven't challenged it, that the process was overly difficult is that the process is overly difficult.


And I note you not only didn't provide the evidence that thus was about trying to make the judicial process less thorough than it should be, you edited that bit out of my post.

[jeremyp]

That doesn't say that.

What doesn't say what?

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

Context. It was a reply to PD's message. A reasonable person would assume you were trying to refute it.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, the obvious conclusion with the judge in a case where the cyclist was prosecuted but where according to IDS they said, and they haven't challenged it, that the process was overly difficult is that the process is overly difficult.

Is that sentence supposed to be remotely intelligible.

And I note you not only didn't provide the evidence that thus was about trying to make the judicial process less thorough than it should be, you edited that bit out of my post.

Or that one.