Have we done this yet? I'll make a point of taking the car next time I plan to kill someone, as all ill get is a slap on the wrist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0w8g18x9no
I don't see the issue. Behaviour that cause a death should not be limited to a 160yearold law.
Unintentional deaths caused by dangerous actions should be able to carry the same level of sentencing, whether its cars, bikes or paddle boards surely?
And the problem is?
I'll make a point of taking the car next time I plan to kill someone, as all ill get is a slap on the wrist.
The max sentence is life imprisonment for a car, which is what is being proposed for cyclists too instead of 2 years.
If you have been killed by any sort of vehicle it sounds fair enough that the potential sentence is the same.
For context vehicle drivers kill upwards of 400 pedestrians every year, cyclists less than 1.
And I can't imagine anyone picks a bike to run someone over on purpose...
For context vehicle drivers kill upwards of 400 pedestrians every year, cyclists less than 1.
That may be true, but is clearly no argument that the cyclist deserves a lower sentence.
"The government estimates that of 1,600 deaths on UK roads last year, four were caused by cyclists"
Estimates? At 4?! "on the roads" hm.. I wonder how many motorists killed by cyclists were in that estimate
For context vehicle drivers kill upwards of 400 pedestrians every year, cyclists less than 1.
That may be true, but is clearly no argument that the cyclist deserves a lower sentence.
Driving a car recklessly clearly presents a much higher risk of death than a pedaling a bicycle recklessly, so surely cycling does deserve a lower sentence even with the same outcome?
"The government estimates that of 1,600 deaths on UK roads last year, four were caused by cyclists"
This is incorrect. The stats don't say who caused the accident, just the type of road users invovled.
Seems reasonable - so long as pedestrians who kill or seriously injure cyclists by stepping out in front of them whilst staring at their phone (or similar obliviousness) also face similar sentences.
For context vehicle drivers kill upwards of 400 pedestrians every year, cyclists less than 1.
So an average of zero possible prosecutions per year.
Just more culture war nonsense to divide and rule.
It becomes a « culture war » issue when people try to make it a battlefield.
As I am a cyclist would I get a life sentence for axe murdering the noisey builders next door.
A couple of thoughts on this:
I found the sentencing council guidelines on causing death by dangerous driving earlier and while a five year minimum driving ban is still lenient (should be life unless there'sa really good reason), the maximum sentence for this is life. Only issue is that these only came into force for offences after 2022 and because of austerity driven court delays these are only getting tried now.
The proposed amendment closes a loophole and brings sentencing into line with this, but it's the only road safety amendment to the Crime & Policing Bill and given the rarity of what we're talking about (so rare that we're still discussing the Alletson case) this does nothing except contribute to the mood music about cycling and cyclists being dangerous.
I'd encourage everyone to write to their MP about this, I'm drafting a template response for my local AT group members to use but happy to share with anyone who DMs me.
I have no issue with the rule change, so long as the rules are applied consistently with folks that kill in cars
What I suspect will happen is folks who kill someone on a bike will be made an example of, because it's an unusual thing to happen. Take the example of the chap on the fixie who got 2 years when someone walked out in front of them, part of the reason he was found guilty was because he only had one brake and couldn't slow down in time
Contrast that with the chap who mowed into a group ride killing 4 cyclists and gets a slap on the wrist, despite his tyres being defective
Seems to be the priorities are all wrong here. Cars are lethal weapons, as the statistics show, whilst bikes tend not to be. Yet folks getting killed by cars is almost 'normalised' in society.
I say this as a committed petrol head, I'm definitely not anti cars...
this does nothing except contribute to the mood music about cycling and cyclists being dangerous.
On the contrary - it diverts the potential for a lot of the non cycling population from thinking, maybe unreasonably, that cyclists expect to get away with anything.
Would be good if the 1 death a year was also highlighted in the headline to give perspective but that wouldn't meet the agenda so well would it.
I don't see the issue. Behaviour that cause a death should not be limited to a 160yearold law.
Unintentional deaths caused by dangerous actions should be able to carry the same level of sentencing, whether its cars, bikes or paddle boards surely?
I agree with your sentiment - although like most "something must be done" laws changes or increased sentences it will almost never be used - anyone who meets the level of riding necessary to merit a life sentence probably already falls into the gross negligence manslaughter scope anyway. However ebikes (even legal ones) do increase the potential for stupid people doing bad stuff on bikes so its probably not unreasonable. If it helps shut up the daily mail commenters who believe cyclists are all idiots with impunity then its probably a good thing.
That may be true, but is clearly no argument that the cyclist deserves a lower sentence.
At the risk of getting into whataboutery, if you want to update the laws then maybe the cycling one doesn't really need updating and look at the issue that actually does seem to cause harm. Also making this law the same as a law that doesn't seem to work maybe isn't a great idea.
The one thing that I'm still concerned with as a cyclist is that since the road priority changes in recent years, you still get the odd pedestrian who thinks they can stride out onto the road and expect all road users to slam the brakes on, so they can cross the road without injury or worse... When they haven't looked both ways properly to consider traffic on the road and their speed.
At 23mph, which many cyclists could easily do on a very slight downhill gradient and especially in a tailwind, the cyclist will be covering more than 10 metres per second.
At 23mph, the reaction distance and stopping in a car is expected to be over 13 metres. I presume that braking distance will be further for most cyclists on most brake types.
I'm obviously very thick and ignorant about this as I'm wading that and surprised it isn't the case already as surely it should be person who kills...and should apply to everyone.
I'm obviously very thick and ignorant about this as I'm wading that and surprised it isn't the case already as surely it should be person who kills...and should apply to everyone.
Well they could, but prosecutors find proving gross negligence hard just as they do with motorists so there are specific offences for causing death by dangerous driving. No direct equivalent exists (yet) for bikes and a historic law made in the days of horses and carts is used instead.
And I can't imagine anyone picks a bike to run someone over on purpose...
I doubt there are many drivers who go out with that intention either.
The main problem I see is that an average jury will have wildly different standards for what constitutes "dangerous" cycling vs "dangerous" driving. Even the most insane cyclist, brakeless and pulling a sick skid into a crowd of puppies or the like, will struggle to get near the actual danger levels of what is commonly considered 'careless' in a car. The overpowered / throttled e-bikes that might manage it already come under illegal motorbike usage rather than cycling.
can't say I've observed such a change in behaviour either in the car or on a bike, perhaps people here understand the rule better or have greater self preservation.The one thing that I'm still concerned with as a cyclist is that since the road priority changes in recent years, you still get the odd pedestrian who thinks they can stride out onto the road and expect all road users to slam the brakes on, so they can cross the road without injury or worse... When they haven't looked both ways properly to consider traffic on the road and their speed.
if you are riding at 23 mph through an area where people commonly step out in front of you causing you to slam the brakes on perhaps you need to slow down?At 23mph, which many cyclists could easily do on a very slight downhill gradient and especially in a tailwind, the cyclist will be covering more than 10 metres per second.At 23mph, the reaction distance and stopping in a car is expected to be over 13 metres. I presume that braking distance will be further for most cyclists on most brake types.
if you are riding at 23 mph through an area where people commonly step out in front of you causing you to slam the brakes on perhaps you need to slow down?
Where did "commonly" come from?
If a cyclist riding at 23mph needs to slow down in case a pedestrian steps out in front of them, what's an appropriate speed for a motorist?
At the risk of getting into whataboutery
Yes, very much so.
If a cyclist riding at 23mph needs to slow down in case a pedestrian steps out in front of them, what's an appropriate speed for a motorist?
Not as slow as the cyclist. A would expect a cyclist to travel about 10 metres if they did an emergency stop at that speed, and it was dry conditions. I would expect the motorist to pretty much stop on dime at the same speed.
I would expect the motorist to pretty much stop on dime at the same speed.
Good luck testing that theory. The cyclist will likely be looking out for pedestrians. The motorist not so much
I don't stop looking out for pedestrians when I'm driving my car. Why would I?
I don't stop looking out for pedestrians when I'm driving my car. Why would I?
Not you (I suspect you are unlikely to run over yourself) but other drivers. Texting, fiddling with a podcast, setting the satnav, drinking a coffee. Looking out for pedestrians is low on the list.
Genuinely, would you step onto the road without looking because the driver will stop on a dime? I certainly won't.
Just more culture war nonsense to divide and rule.
It becomes a « culture war » issue when people try to make it a battlefield.
I think is the key point here.
Actions have consequences, and the punishments should be equal regardless of the ride of transport.
As a cyclist and a driver I am now likely to get a similar sentence if my dangerous actions cause a death or serious injury whether I'm driving or cycling. That seems pretty sensible and reasonable to me.
so long as the rules are applied consistently with folks that kill in cars
Exactly, I still find it baffling that drivers killing cyclists don't get life sentences.
As a cyclist and a driver I am now likely to get a similar sentence if my dangerous actions cause a death or serious injury whether I'm driving or cycling. That seems pretty sensible and reasonable to me.
In principle I agree BUT...
Such an offence would be dealt with by jury trial at Crown Court.
I fear that a jury of everyday folks might be much more inclined to lock up a cyclist or demonstrate a total lack of cycling knowledge and return a guilty verdict on cases where a motorist would likely have got off due to a "I drive as rubbish as that it could have been me" mentality that I suspect has played a part in many unsuccessful cases of drivers being prosecuted for killing cyclists and pedestrians.
The car culture of the UK means the jury will be more likely to be prejudiced at least in part against the cyclist than a driver meaning there may be a much elevated risk of conviction. Those angry people on the community face book groups ranting about cyclists, the ones who close and punishment pass and people like the van driver who called my 12 year old a F* c* for riding his bike to school sit on juries.
The relative rarity of such cases might also drive unconscious bias.
The risk of this change in law is more about wrongful conviction than resultant sentencing.
Not as slow as the cyclist. A would expect a cyclist to travel about 10 metres if they did an emergency stop at that speed, and it was dry conditions. I would expect the motorist to pretty much stop on dime at the same speed.
LOL ok it's silly season, I'll give up on this thread if people are just going to spout nonsense without bothering to even think about what they are writing.
Reaction time for braking a car (not just noticing, but pressing the pedal) is about a second and that's already 10m.
This thread has gone predictably.
Two points of note i think.
Quite alot of people don't seem to know what a jury does.
Its not about what the braking distance or anything like that is.
Look at charlie aliston. He went was riding about without a front brake. He even admitted that not having a front brake was so much worse than having one that when the weather was bad he fitted one. He rode through town at speed, a daft lady stepped out looking at her phone he slowed down to about 10mph and yelled at her. She was startled stepped back into his swerve and killed her, well she eventually died. If he had been in a car the outcome could have been different, could have been multiple people, cpuld have been noticed by the lady, could have been killed instantly, could have died after a long drawn out hostpital stay.
Up until now the verdict would have been furious cycling or something like that from 1860something.
If he had been in a car there would have been a clear criterior to judge him against with sentencing guidelines to follow. The law shouldn't have situations where the phrase "if you had been driving a car, you would get 5years, but you were on a bike so have 2" the fact he was on a bike means he cannot be tried on a law that specifically requires you to be driving a motorised vehicle.
The actions and behaviours of the individual are what are on trial not whether you happened to be riding a pushie or not.
if you are riding at 23 mph through an area where people commonly step out in front of you causing you to slam the brakes on perhaps you need to slow down?
Where did "commonly" come from?
If a cyclist riding at 23mph needs to slow down in case a pedestrian steps out in front of them, what's an appropriate speed for a motorist?
it’s the speed where based on their vehicle; their attentiveness and the visibility of the pedestrians who leap out in front of them they can stop or swerve - just the same as the bike.
the only times I recall people “commonly” walking out in front of my car causing me to break sharply are areas where people have been drinking late at night. That means I’m hyper aware of pedestrians outside pubs at night, and adjust my speed - I can’t give you a specific number the speed I drive at tonight might be different from the speed I drive at tomorrow night depending on how busy it is, how much other traffic is around, parked cars, the weather, the mannerism of the pedestrians etc.
i don’t ride my bike enough at night in busy areas to encounter the same risk takers. Around Edinburgh city centre in rush hour (esp tourist season) people do sometimes step out - I doubt I’m doing 23mph on the bike in those condition though.
if you want to quantify it though assuming reaction and stopping distance in a car at an appropriate speed is X - then if you perceive a risk of people stepping out in front of you is a serious risk to you or them - then perhaps you should also be able to stop in that distance. I don’t have actual numbers for bike brakeing distance (which will depend on brake technology, tyres etc) but my gut feel is it’s about double the cars? Although the thinking distance will be the same at any given speed.
I don’t think you should try to read some sort of literal statistical meaning into my “commonly”, regard it as a figure of speech; anyone who has real world experience knows whether this is the sort of road, time of day etc where people running across the road would be exceptional or actually not that surprising. If the risks postulated by others actually almost never happen in reality - then it’s like car drivers moaning about bikes jumping red lights - yes it happens but almost never to your risk.
to be clear I’m not saying don’t ride your bike at 23mph, I’m saying if pedestrians worry you in places you are doing 23mph then perhaps you shouldn’t be doing 23 mph THERE.
I fear that a jury of everyday folks might be much more inclined to lock up a cyclist or demonstrate a total lack of cycling knowledge and return a guilty verdict on cases where a motorist would likely have got off due to a "I drive as rubbish as that it could have been me" mentality that I suspect has played a part in many unsuccessful cases of drivers being prosecuted for killing cyclists and pedestrians.
Juries don’t set the sentence though?
Quite alot of people don't seem to know what a jury does.
Juries are unpredictable and can do slightly weird things. Usually that will actually be in favour of the defendant (an English jury would only need 3/12 jurors to be unsure of the cyclists guilt to prevent conviction!). If the case got to court and made it past no case to answer there is some sort of evidence against you - yes there may be contradictory evidence / a defence or doubt about the evidence but if you aren’t blasting along pavements or riding through zebra crossings without looking I don’t think you need to worry about juries convicting because a cyclist once cut in front of them at the lights and doesn’t even pay road tax! Judges are actually very specific at directing juries about exactly what they should (and should not) consider to reach their verdict.
correct - so even if a jury convicts you the professional judge with a set of sentencing guidelines determines your sentence. That judge will likely have heard (or prosecuted / defended) dozens of careless and dangerous driving cases before - probably none of which resulted in a life sentence. S/he would need to believe your cycling was worse than any of that driving to even consider a life sentence. Unless you cycle round town centres blind fold whilst juggling swords I don’t think you need to worry about life!I fear that a jury of everyday folks might be much more inclined to lock up a cyclist or demonstrate a total lack of cycling knowledge and return a guilty verdict on cases where a motorist would likely have got off due to a "I drive as rubbish as that it could have been me" mentality that I suspect has played a part in many unsuccessful cases of drivers being prosecuted for killing cyclists and pedestrians.
Juries don’t set the sentence though?
Actions have consequences, and the punishments should be equal regardless of the ride of transport.
Not really imo, the risk to others in cases of negligence by car drivers is incomparably greater than in cases of negligence by cyclists.
For that reason I think that car drivers have far more responsibility not to be negligent than cyclists. A badly driven one and a half ton car is far more likely to cause fatalities than a badly ridden bicycle. So driving a car badly is a far more serious crime than riding a bike badly, at least it should be.
It is about risk assessment. There is a reason why a 15 year old can legally ride a bike on the roads but not drive a car. And it has nothing to do with 15 year olds lacking sufficient skills and reactions to do so, it is to do with them generally lacking the maturity to be responsible for the control of a vehicle.
With regards to what should the maximum sentence for a cyclist guilty of manslaughter due to negligence imo it should be the same as anyone else guilty of manslaughter due to negligence. Obviously it depends on circumstances but a maximum of a couple of years certainly doesn't sound sufficient to me.
Actions have consequences, and the punishments should be equal regardless of the ride of transport.
Not really imo, the risk to others in cases of negligence by car drivers is incomparably greater than in cases of negligence by cyclists.
........
With regards to what should the maximum sentence for a cyclist guilty of manslaughter due to negligence imo it should be the same as anyone else guilty of manslaughter due to negligence. Obviously it depends on circumstances but a maximum of a couple of years certainly doesn't sound sufficient to me.
So which is it then?
Juries don’t set the sentence though?
Sorry my glib language that you fairly quoted (and a couple of others piled on to) rather muddied the waters (my fault entirely in the drafting).
It was supposed to be in quotes/italics to emphasise the kind of mentality I could see certain parts of our society demonstrating rather than a functional description of the jury system.
Apologies for the drafting once more, do carry on 🙂
Personally i am not excessively concerned but I do feel with limited resources and what I see from the car everyday that we should focus more on catching motorists before they kill and maim rather than mess about with a bit of law that might get used once a year.
personally I think it should be the same sentence as killing someone with a car. Both should be treated as bad as the other.
Judges are actually very specific at directing juries about exactly what they should (and should not) consider to reach their verdict.
Um, thats what i meant about people not knowing what juries do. Some people on this thread seem to think they have free reign and while they are at it decide the sentencing.
Not really imo, the risk to others in cases of negligence by car drivers is incomparably greater than in cases of negligence by cyclists.
I would argue with you, but you've done such a good job of agreeing and disagreeing with me i think its rather redundant.
So which is it then?
Which what? You think that cyclists have either the same reasonability as car drivers or no responsibility at all?
Yes cyclists should be punished if they cause death through negligence, no their responsibility is not the same as car drivers, imo.
To labour the point.....if 10 miles from home the cable on my front brake snapped I wouldn't hesitate to continue on my journey home. If 10 miles from home the front brakes on my car for whatever reason packed up there is zero chance that I would continue with my journey.
No front brakes on car is a far more serious offence than no front brakes on a bicycle. Likewise I wouldn't drive 10 miles without car lights but I would ride my bike if the batteries went flat. Yes it would be wrong, no it wouldn't be as serious, etc etc
I would argue with you, but you've done such a good job of agreeing and disagreeing with me i think its rather redundant.
Yeah I forgot, this is STW.......you pick a side and stick with it ! Everything is so simple and black and white ! 😃
+1 on what JonEdwards said
So which is it then?
Which what? You think that cyclists have either the same reasonability as car drivers or no responsibility at all?
Yes cyclists should be punished if they cause death through negligence, no their responsibility is not the same as car drivers, imo.
To labour the point.....if 10 miles from home the cable on my front brake snapped I wouldn't hesitate to continue on my journey home. If 10 miles from home the front brakes on my car for whatever reason packed up there is zero chance that I would continue with my journey.
No front brakes on car is a far more serious offence than no front brakes on a bicycle. Likewise I wouldn't drive 10 miles without car lights but I would ride my bike if the batteries went flat. Yes it would be wrong, no it wouldn't be as serious, etc etc
I'm glad you cleared that up
I'm glad you cleared that up
Actually it's occurred to me that this comment I made might have caused some confusion:
imo it should be the same as anyone else guilty of manslaughter due to negligence.
By "anyone else guilty of manslaughter" I wasn't referring to car drivers, I was referring to anyone guilty of manslaughter. My understanding is that car drivers are specifically prosecuted for 'causing death by dangerous driving' not manslaughter.
Cyclists imo should be prosecuted just like anyone else whose negligence causes death. A maximum of 2 years under all circumstances doesn't sound reasonable to me.
usually they are prosecuted for Death by Dangerous (or Careless) driving, rather than manslaughter, but it is legally competent to charge with manslaughter. The CPS guidance is here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-fatal-offences-and-bad-drivingMy understanding is that car drivers are specifically prosecuted for 'causing death by dangerous driving' not manslaughter.
usually they are prosecuted for Death by Dangerous (or Careless) driving, rather than manslaughter, but it is legally competent to charge with manslaughter.
Interesting. So why can't cyclists currently be charged with manslaughter like anyone else then?
As I understand it in the Kim Briggs case the police told her husband that the only charge available was 'causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving"
Surely anyone who causes an unlawful death should face the possibility of a manslaughter charge?
personally I think it should be the same sentence as killing someone with a car. Both should be treated as bad as the other.
The trouble with that is it's 50/50 who is going to come off worst in a collision between a pedestrian and a person on a bike.
From media coverage you would think cyclist pedestrian collisions only injure the pedestrian and yet the only cyclist pedestrian collision I've seen in real life involved a woman stepping into the street between two cars, being hit by a middle aged man on a bike, and resulted in her standing there holding her shoulder while he was sprawled out in the middle of the street not moving.
So maybe we should think about jailing pedestrians for life as well.
I knew there was someone killed by a pedestrian round about the same time that the Charlie Alliston trial was going on. Took some amount of googling to find it though.
As you can imagine, it didn't get much coverage.
I think most people aren't especially annoyed at the law, they are annoyed that it implies drivers are getting life imprisonment when it's really not the case. There was no need for this law, if closing loophole was their main reasoning then they could have changed any number which would have made far more sense but they didn't, they changed the one they knew would get the headlines.
https://bsky.app/profile/cargobikeben.bsky.social/post/3lnoxt5ndw22y
It is rather ridiculous that this change in law is considered such a big deal as to be front page news on the BBC. It really does (at least to me) highlight how much people don’t like cyclists or at least see them as a problem on the roads, that this change in law, which in the article itself states will effect vanishingly few, gets clicked on enough to make into the top 10 most read.
^^ It’s OK she was distracted and obviously a nice middle class lady with a BMW. So no penalty, other than being labelled a killer for the rest of her life.
I’ve cycled along there several times, long straight road with a v occasional car park on the side of the road. Again it makes you realise just how reliant your safety is on other people.
Interesting. So why can't cyclists currently be charged with manslaughter like anyone else then?
They can but almost always wouldn't be, unless there isn't an option.
The reason, as with drivers, is that there is less likely to be a conviction either because the offence is more difficult to prove or because juries are considered less likely to convict because they put themselves in their car or on their bike.
A few things need to be considered before getting too wound up about this headline:
It isn't law because it isn't a big problem. If it ever had been then it would have been included in the scope of some major report or other and it never has been. The chances of falling foul of it are minimal
If it becomes law then the CPS will attach guidance making prosecution less likely than for a driver. Things like texting on a mobile phone are easy for a driver, less so for a cyclist. Your shopping falling off your bike is less likely to kill a pedestrian than a patio door tied onto your car's roof-bars.
Sentencing guidelines will be made as well. Failing to stop adds to your sentence and is easier for a driver than a cyclist whose bike is wrecked
The bottom line is that to be prosecuted, convicted and heavily sentenced will put you in the most deserving category
I think most people aren't especially annoyed at the law, they are annoyed that it implies drivers are getting life imprisonment when it's really not the case.
And if you really think that this law will mean cyclists will get life imprisonment, it really won't be the case either.
I'll make a point of taking the car next time I plan to kill someone
I've mentioned elsewhere that once we have a couple of cyclists serving long sentences for killing people whilst riding a bike it's open season for appealing every lenient driver sentence to the Justice/Home Secretary. Make this point often enough and loudly enough and it will be sidelined as an unworkable idea.
It is rather ridiculous that this change in law is considered such a big deal as to be front page news on the BBC. It really does (at least to me) highlight how much people don’t like cyclists or at least see them as a problem on the roads, that this change in law, which in the article itself states will effect vanishingly few, gets clicked on enough to make into the top 10 most read.
It says more about journalistic standards that this is deserving of a headline. It's not part of a commentary on Government finally getting around to sorting the statute books out, rather discouragement for a minority group on our roads
It says more about journalistic standards that this is deserving of a headline. It's not part of a commentary on Government finally getting around to sorting the statute books out, rather discouragement for a minority group on our roads
The BBC aren't the ones pushing it to the top of most read articles - that's the people. The BBC have written a fair article and the headline is largely the first line of the article.
It says more about journalistic standards that this is deserving of a headline. It's not part of a commentary on Government finally getting around to sorting the statute books out, rather discouragement for a minority group on our roads
The BBC aren't the ones pushing it to the top of most read articles - that's the people. The BBC have written a fair article and the headline is largely the first line of the article.
I agree that it's an existing attitude, but it's perpetuated by including, "He added that it was "incomprehensible" cycling was "literally lawless" under "old-fashioned" measures not designed for modern road usage", which will have certain groups frothing at the mouth.
Yes, it's balanced by, "...while the charity supports "a proportionate and evidence-based approach" to updating the law, "it's crucial that any legislative changes do not discourage people from cycling, particularly at a time when promoting active and sustainable travel is vital for our health, environment, and economy".
But why include the "literally lawless" comment at all?
Cycling UK's statement supports updating the law, it's up-to-date, accurate and spells out the benefits of cycling.