You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
IDS thinks so ...
https://road.cc/content/news/iain-duncan-smith-calls-death-dangerous-cycling-law-308247
IDS 😀
Also wants a pension age of 75.
Nope
No, we could just use/tweak the existing manslaughter laws to cover deaths caused by any form of transport.
Spot on. This idea of "let's make illegal things even more illegal" is absolute cocking nonsense, and the sign of a government that is absolutely flailing around to look like it's doing something - anything - as the country goes to the dogs beneath them.
I reckon it'd cost less and be economically more useful to build proper infrasture to keep peds, cyclists and cars separate as much as we can to reduce to chances of fatal accidents rather than try to enforce legislation on a group of folks who probably cause very few deaths or serious injuries by comparison to pretty much every other road user.
Goggling suggests 25 pedestrian deaths in the last seven years caused by cyclists.
IDS in ridiculous I'M STILL RELEVANT shocker.
cycling” law
Is it that time of year already?
The Quiet Man speaks eh?
Fine, lets have it. The relatively small number of deaths caused by bicycling dickheads should be appropriately prosecuted and sentenced. If Dunc wants to expend civil servant's effort implementing a specific offence I'm sure he can justify it rather than just using the existing option of manslaughter.
I also assume alongside this He'll be calling for strengthening sentencing guidelines for "Causing Death by careless driving" as well as more better guidance on when to push charge "Causing Death by dangerous driving" rather than letting "dangerous" drivers barter their way to the lesser "careless" charge...
According to Duncan Smith’s amendments, bikes would also be legally required to be “equipped and maintained” to standards set out in the Act.
But Is ^^that^^ them trying to slip "bicycle MOTs" in by the backdoor?
There's already requirements covering this in the highways code...
I did wonder about that - it's about the second paragraph of the story and looks rather like he wants to regulate cyclists and how they cycle
This is culture war bullshit, isn't it? Not forgetting that the easy option is always to introduce new laws without doing anything about enforcing the ones we've already got.
I wonder if someone could remind IDS whether it's drivers or cyclists that kill 5 people a day (which is several times the murder rate) and seriously injure many more?
The question is always whether there will be enough parliamentary time for this nonsense before the GE.
Another election attention grab.
I wonder if someone could remind IDS whether it’s drivers or cyclists that kill 5 people a day (which is several times the murder rate) and seriously injure many more?
It's 2-3 times the murder rate Looking at thevstats I just found. Always worth mentioning to the Police and Crime Commissioner when they ask for input on priorities.
Playing Devils Advocate for a second, if my relative was knocked over and killed in a park with a 20mph limit by cyclists doing 25 - 29mph in a peleton at 7am and the police said there wasn't even a law they could charge the cylist under, I'd be pretty annoyed too.
There are laws they can be prosecuted under. There's even an example prison sentence cited in the road.cc article. Of course it depends on what actually happened, the police won't automatically assume the cyclists were at fault. But anyway, cycling in a group at speed isn't about to be made illegal even under these proposals.
I don't disagree @HoratioHufnagel but we don't let victims of crime set tariff for very good reasons. I don't blame them for lobbying their MP, and I don't blame the MP for trying to help them as much as he can, even if its IDS
Playing Devils Advocate for a second, if my relative was knocked over and killed in a park with a 20mph limit by cyclists doing 25 – 29mph in a peleton at 7am and the police said there wasn’t even a law they could charge the cylist under, I’d be pretty annoyed too.
Playing Devil's Advocate for a second, if I was riding along legally (cos speed limits don't apply to cyclists so long as you're not riding like a total ****) and someone stepped off the pavement without looking 2m in front of me giving me no chance to react, never mind avoid the collision and I died, my ghost would be very annoyed that there's nothing they could charge the pedestrian with.
This is often 50:50 - I've seen cases where a cyclist/pedestrian collision has occurred and the cyclist has died.
I hit a pedestrian once who did exactly that - sprinted out from a gap in the traffic without looking, I hit her and fell off on the middle of the road. She was uninjured, got up, looked at me lying there and ran off. 🤬
Actually the Charlie Alliston case wasn't dissimilar. They got him on the grounds of it being an unlawful bike (fixie with no front brake) although it was accepted at trial that no matter what vehicle he'd been in/on, he'd have hit the pedestrian because she just stepped out without looking.
When I used to cycle in London, pedestrians used to step out in front of me without looking fairly frequently.
What we need are some Tory mps with more powers of reasoning than a teabag. Not more cycling laws
Playing Devil’s Advocate for a second, if I was riding along legally (cos speed limits don’t apply to cyclists so long as you’re not riding like a total ****) and someone stepped off the pavement without looking 2m in front of me giving me no chance to react, never mind avoid the collision and I died, my ghost would be very annoyed that there’s nothing they could charge the pedestrian with.
Pedestrians do step out without looking yes, it's happened to me too, but I think because the cyclist is the one travelling at speed, they are the one bringing the extra risk so they need to have more responsibility than the pedestrian.
If it’s not named after someone, I’m not interested.
they are the one bringing the extra risk so they need to have more responsibility than the pedestrian.
They do, there’s laws around that.
What we need are some Tory mps with more powers of reasoning than a teabag. Not more cycling laws
Or fewer Tory MPs overall. Either is good.
They do, there’s laws around that.
Is there? Genui e question and I'm curious. I know the HC sets pedestrians as more vulnerable than a cyclist but that doesn't mean that crossing the road without looking sets a greater responsibility on the cyclist. You are supposed to look before you cross a road whether on foot or in a vehicle.
I know the HC sets pedestrians as more vulnerable than a cyclist but that doesn’t mean that crossing the road without looking sets a greater responsibility on the cyclist. You are supposed to look before you cross a road whether on foot or in a vehicle.
Well of it doesn’t eliminate that but cyclist are more responsible. However, if someone walks out in front of you then you can hardly be blamed of cycling sensibly.
if my relative stepped out without looking and was knocked over and killed in a park with a 20mph limit by cyclists who had no chance to stop in a peleton at 7am and the police said there wasn’t even a law they could charge the cyclist under, I’d be pretty annoyed too.
Both confirmed by an independent witness and all reported at this week's inquest. I'd be annoyed at my relative, but sadly not have the opportunity to inform them. Accidents do happen. Culpability lies with the pedestrian in this instance, hence no charges have been laid.
Current laws are sufficient. I've hit a pedestrian who did not look and stepped out. I was not speeding excessively and had absolutely no chance of stopping in time. Fortunately they were OK. My bike was not, but they'd got away before I had any chance of redress.
Kramer said.... "When I used to cycle in London, pedestrians used to step out in front of me without looking fairly frequently."
I took a trip to that there London once. I remember very well the sound of a rapidly approaching police car with full blues and twos blaring. We get one every 5-10 years where I live so it was quite a sight. He came screeching round the corner into the road I was on and then took a hard left into the side street right next to where I was stood. Then did a massive skiidy type emergency stop as a group of Asian tourists had simply walked out into the road directly in front of the car! I can only guess they get a few more sirens whereever they came from!
and the police said there wasn’t even a law they could charge the cylist under, I’d be pretty annoyed too.
You'd be entitled to be annoyed because it would show the police didn't understand the current law. Good thing it's a hypothetical.
woman stepped out without looking. There is no law for that. Cyclist didn't do anything wrong.
As far as the law goes yes there should be something with a greater sentence but they don't punish car drivers properly and they kill and injure significantly more people than bikes do. something like 2.5 on average per year die due to a collision with a bike and how many of those would be characterised at death by dangerous cycling.
If IDS was actually trying to make the roads safer would he not be moving to make the speed limit apply to bikes rather than focus on punishment after its too late? Did the coroner make any observations about an organised group ride above the motor vehicle speed limit?
Do we need a “death by inconsiderate cycling” law
We're all agreed that we need to reinstate the death penalty and yes, one method of dispatch could be a crowd of cyclists riding over the felon inconsiderately
I would love a government to try and bring in a bicycle MOT. It simply couldn’t work. Badly thought out bollocks is what it is. Impossible to implement and no way to actively police if. Also just an utterly daft concept. Make cars much more expensive to own and operate. Invest in public transport and infrastructure.
Completely impractical and unenforceable, as with number plates.
If they can’t catch the approx 1m unlicensed or uninsured drivers…
Are we going to have a "death by inconsiderate driving" law?
If she had been killed by a car doing over the speed limit chances are it would never have come near the headlines.
"Do we need a “death by inconsiderate cycling” law? (among others)"
Nope. We need a properly funded and resourced police force and judicial system applying perfectly adequate current laws properly, without prejudice, without political interference and without political grandstanding to the permanently intolerant.
If she had been killed by a car doing over the speed limit chances are it would never have come near the headlines.
I said something similar in response to a comment on Twitter.
The next day the press were out in force with long lenses and speed guns to "prove" there were hordes of lycra clad terrorists thrashing round the park. Strange how they don't do that if a pedestrian is killed by a car (something which happens literally every day).
Are we going to have a “death by inconsiderate driving” law?
we already do, s2B of Road Traffic Act (introduced in 2008).
i would like a law against ids as he has caused more deaths than cyclists when he was work and pensions ****
Yeah, saw that earlier this morning. At the end of the day the police will only take action when it's too late and there's been an accident/fatality, due to the lack of resources due to 14 years of Tory cut backs.
The good news is you'll be let out 70 days early due to prison overcrowding
What’s the actual legislation then? Is it strictly limited to adopted roads? Or could this apply off-road?
The number of people killed or injured by cyclists is very small. Introducing this law will make no difference to that, and I suspect a very small number of people will ever be prosecuted under the new law.
Zombie government doing zombie stuff.
Sad. This government is pathetic.
The number of people killed or injured by cyclists is very small.
And the number of people (especially children) killed by motor vehicles is very large (the number of people injured runs into hundreds of thousands).
The problem with this law is that it implies that the threat is the same. If the aim is to save lives, then it's a complete waste of time and money. It's headbanging populist bollocks to win votes. It worries me though, that the aggressive narrative behind it will increase tensions on the road and cost more lives.
It just indulges the easily led and gives ammunition to the increasing view that cyclists are the problem rather than the solution.
So sad. Such lack of vision. Such awful awful decision making from the weakest government in Europe.
Hmm so you're in an accident. Hang around and risk prison or flee the scene and never be found? Numberplate laws next!
It is being tagged on to an existing law going through parliament. personally I don't see the issue of it. However, the fact they don't deal with all the car death/injuries is the actual problem.
The point that IDS seems to miss is that there are more pressing matters to legislate for and, in any case, the sentencing guidelines that apply to drivers wouldn't apply to many cyclists:
It's unusual for a cyclist to kill, unlike drivers, and they're unlikely to have previous cycling convictions
It's unheard of for a cyclist to kill more than one person in the same collision, unlike drivers
It's unusual for a cyclist to be exceeding the road speed limit (assuming that they applied)
Collisions involving cyclists are often contributed to by the pedestrian
Enforce existing legislation with cyclists. Crack down on illegal e-motorbikes, e-scooters, etc and you'd remove much of the perceived problem
Or could this apply off-road?
The actual text of the amendment is here. The wording is "on a road or other public place", so the answer would be yes.
As for "equipped and maintained to standards set out in the Act", the 'Act' in this case is the Road Traffic Act 1988, specifically Section 81 (Regulation of brakes, bells etc., on pedal cycles.).
I hit a pedestrian once who did exactly that – sprinted out from a gap in the traffic without looking, I hit her and fell off on the middle of the road. She was uninjured, got up, looked at me lying there and ran off.
I had this too, except I didn't fall off and they didn't get back up.
250kg's of Yamaha Fazer 1000 made sure...
Shit... sorry you had to experience that. Must have been hard.
I'd be much happier with a "death by inconsiderate cycling" law, if there was matching "causing injury by walking like a pillock" law. In my (mostly London) commuting career, I've had many near misses and the (very) occasional shoulder barge with peds who step blindly off the pavement, staring at their phones and with headphones on.
I've only once had conflict with a cyclist at a crossing, it's the one on Kirkstall Road in Leeds by the Abbey.
Dude ran the light as I stepped out, (I wasn't paying that much attention, if I had I probably would have seen he wasn't stopping and elected to stay on the curb) I turned just in time, yanked the dog back and he bounced off my back/shoulder (which ****ing hurt mind) but he then clattered into the railings and ended up in a pile.
I did go to make sure he was okay after his subsequent spill, he was quite cranky and sweary, I felt less bad at this point and imagine he was/is a dick in a motor vehicle too.
At that point I was no longer interested in his wellbeing and went about my day as the dog was quite freaked out and was more my concern.
I'd argue the underlying issue is one of social responsibility and conscience, no?
Laws are great but seems to me this latest Knorr culture-war soup mix will simply be more divisive than cohesive.
People are ****ing dicks, and dickish behaviour is simply magnified depending on the size of the vehicle they're piloting.