Dangerous cycling law.

[Roses]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45154708

A new law against dangerous cycling is being considered. It is an issue I feel very strongly about. I hope it is brought in and very soon. There are so many cyclists who don't think the rules of the road apply to them. I have seen them jump red lights, ride down one way streets the wrong way, I was nearly knocked down by one idiot not long ago, doing just that on a narrow road in our village. I also take issue with cyclists who ride up to four abreast not letting cars pass them, this cause frustration and can lead to accidents.

[SteveH]

All the things you mention are already illegal, so why do we need a new law?

[Nearly Sane]

All the things you mention are already illegal, so why do we need a new law?

Isn't the argument covered in the link? It does appear as it makes clear that it's a bit piecemeal but a more wide ranging review of the law would seem to make sense. Personally I would have the charge of dangerous walking introduced  as well.

[ekim]

... and some would add dangerous invalid carriage driving.

[Spud]

Just to put things in perspective,

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/aug/17/traffic-videos-chaos-removing-signals-shared-space

[Maeght]

All the things you mention are already illegal, so why do we need a new law?

There is no equivalent to death by dangerous driving fir cyclists so a specific offence needs to be introduced it seems.

[Roses]

There is no equivalent to death by dangerous driving fir cyclists so a specific offence needs to be introduced it seems.

Exactly.

[Harrowby Hall]

As a driver I have come across instances of dangerous, careless and thoughtless behaviour by cyclists. The worst was when on a quiet, winding country road a cyclist suddenly appeared in front of me on the wrong side of his road - clearly cutting a corner to save slowing down. We did not collide - but this was a significant factor in my purchase of a dash cam.

Groups of cyclists ride three abreast or string themselves out - in both instances they make safe passing difficult or impossible.

Cyclists have every right to be on the road and they deserve to be treated with care and respect. But in their turn they should recognise that sharing a road with motorists bring with it responsibilities as well as rights. Perhaps we should consider whether adult cyclists should carry compulsory insurance.

[SteveH]

There is no equivalent to death by dangerous driving fir cyclists so a specific offence needs to be introduced it seems.

Manslaughter. The selfish idiot who killed a woman because he was riding a track bike with no brakes got banged up for a few years, and would have got longer had his victim not been partly to blame - she was looking at a smartphone.

[Nearly Sane]

Manslaughter. The selfish idiot who killed a woman because he was riding a track bike with no brakes got banged up for a few years, and would have got longer had his victim not been partly to blame - she was looking at a smartphone.

Except manslaughter wasn't found in this, and indeed other cases.

[SteveH]

But it could have been. The point is that we don't need new laws when existing laws cover the offence.

[Nearly Sane]

But it could have been. The point is that we don't need new laws when existing laws cover the offence.

No, it was tried and not found.

[Rhiannon]

I don't really see why cyclists shouldn't have laws applying to them in the same way that motorists do.

[SteveH]

No, it was tried and not found.

That's probably because the woman was partly at fault.

[Nearly Sane]

That's probably because the woman was partly at fault.

So your point doesn't address the anomaly between the law in driving and cycling. Dangerous driving was introduced in part because of juries' reluctance to find manslaughter.

[SteveH]

You're just trying to pick an argument for the hell of it, as usual. Goodbye.

[Nearly Sane]

You're just trying to pick an argument for the hell of it, as usual. Goodbye.

No, I think there is a reasonable question about whether the law has problems. Why is disagreeing with you mean I'm picking an argument for the hell of it?

[jeremyp]

Manslaughter. The selfish idiot who killed a woman because he was riding a track bike with no brakes got banged up for a few years, and would have got longer had his victim not been partly to blame - she was looking at a smartphone.

But he was found not guilty of manslaughter and convicted on a charge of "wanton and furious driving" which was a law they dredged up from 1861 that carries a maximum sentence of two years. He got 18 months and I don't care if the victim was looking at her phone, if he's had a bike with brakes (i.e. one that was legal) he would not have killed her.

[Rhiannon]

But he was found not guilty of manslaughter and convicted on a charge of "wanton and furious driving" which was a law they dredged up from 1861 that carries a maximum sentence of two years. He got 18 months and I don't care if the victim was looking at her phone, if he's had a bike with brakes (i.e. one that was legal) he would not have killed her.

Agreed.

[Roses]

When I was a child in my home island, a licence was required if you had a bicycle.