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.
