Oh not this again. And I'm sure I read another news story which described several youths jumping into the path of the bike, forcing him to swerve onto the pavement...
Hmm.. peds are very fond of stepping out infront of cyclists without looking. Could get difficult.
"There needs to be a charge that reflects the seriousness and consequences of a cyclist's actions."
Agreed, but first we need a charge(s) that reflects the consequences of motorists actions where road accidents kill 2,946 a year and injure many others. One death a year one average is a cyclists fault.
I'm largely in agreement - cyclists should have responsibility for their actions. However...
1. That recount of the incident in 2007 is incredibly biased and misses out some key facts.
2. Whilst 14yrs might be a possible sentence for death by dangerous driving, the number of drivers that have killed cyclists, pedestrians or other motorists and been sentenced to nothing more that a suspended sentence and a few hundred quid fine makes a mockery of the comparison. Toughen up the use of existing legislation and prove you have the balls to actually use what you have before you bother bringing in new laws.
In 2009 no pedestrians were killed by cyclists. 426 were killed by motorists.
Existing laws have been used to jail 2 cyclists who killed pedestrians in the last decade or so. Why the need to waste parliamentary time with this?
Utterly pointless, the article itself says:
"Ten pedestrians were killed by cyclists and 262 seriously injured between 2005 and 2009, official figures say."
10 potential cases in 4 (or possibly 5) years. Not exactly an epidemic and plenty of existing laws to prosecute the cyclists with if they were found to be at fault.
I see the usual "Cyclist don't pay for the roads" bollocks has started already - anyone going to join the "Have Your Say" comments?
It's a sad fact that people find one death caused by a cyclist shocking but hundreds of deaths caused by motorists par for the course.....the car is king.
It's so depressing, this sort of thing. As you say akira, society is blind to all the death, maiming and injury caused by motor vehicles, blind to the pollution and noise, blind to the social destruction and urban and rural dislocation caused by the car.
When will our society see?
Cyclists are denigrated for being 'self-righteous', but **** me, haven't we got a lot of valid things to be righteous [i]about[/i]!?
It's so depressing, this sort of thing. As you say akira, society is blind to all the death, maiming and injury caused by motor vehicles, blind to the pollution and noise, blind to the social destruction and urban and rural dislocation caused by the car.
Totally agree, it really gets me down sometimes.
Hmmm... [url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2009 ]"Road Casualties Great Britain: 2009"[/url] (table 23c):
Total pedestrians reported hit by cyclists: 292
Of which killed: 0
Of which seriously injured: 66
Total pedestrians casualties: 26,887
Of which killed: 500
Of which seriously injured: 5,545
Yep clearly cyclists are a dangerous menace 😯 🙄
"A cyclist approached the group at speed, jumping from the road to cut across the pavement and yelling, 'Move! I'm not stopping!"'
I thought that it was a bunch of drunken girls, stepping out into the road playing chicken with traffic, and the cyclist was equally as pig headed and didn't take proper evasive action, IMO the behaviour of the girl was the majority contributing factor, if she was to be classified as a victim it would be of her own stupidity.
It also evaded the fact that the "to cut across the pavement bit" was the guy going from road to a cycle lane. No doubt the guy acted like a bit of a cock but there were more mitigating circumstances than originally indicated.
FWIW this is my post on the BBC comments section:
The DfT "Road Casualties in Great Britain" report adds proper perspective to this story: in 2009, there were 275 recorded accidents where a pedestrian was hit by a cyclist, resulting in ZERO FATALITIES and 66 serious injuries (table 23c). Meanwhile other vehicles killed 500 pedestrians and seriously injured 5,479.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13034162?postId=107980506#comment_107980506
Hmmm.. my post has mysteriously disappeared.. how convenient.
still there - page 3
So presumably pedestrians that step into the road without looking and bring down a cyclist (ie me...) can expect the same treatment. And yes my AC'd shoulder that I got as a result still gives me trouble 12 years on.
hmmm, seems another sneaky tax on it's way. The next thing will be number plates and tax discs, then a 75% tax on tyres.
Why is it though when MP's get on their soapbox about something they only states what they want to state. You never hear them using the story of "The Darwin award waiting to happen who spent more time texting than checking to see if it was safe to cross the road is the reason for this bill, yes she/he had their face buried in Angry Birds when the cyclist ploughed through them but had the cyclist used Hayes brakes instead of Hope and had a Spongebob Squarepants bell, then this blight on society may live another day to vote on Britain's Got A New Untalented Bum-hole"
Won't someone think of the uneducated children
[img] 
[/img]
still there - page 3
So it is. Number 42.
It was definitely gone for a while. Either someone reported it or they have the same 40 post bug that STW has 🙂
This is basically about the fact that car drivers find it incredibly easy to get in a rage about just about anything.
Me included.
You/we drive around in your little bubble judging just about anything (chavs/range rover sports/cyclists/town planning/etc/etc) with absolutely no perspective on things.
Then you get home with all that underlying rage and find someone agrees with you and you let it all out!
Anyone looking at this objectively can't possibly come up with 9/10ths of the rubbish posted on the BBC comments.
You could just as easily post anything that annoys drivers - lorries overtaking lorries; sunday drivers; roadworks; etc and you'd get a similar 'outraged' response.
Not that it makes any odds, but I just tried this tact:
Why do people witter on about "road tax" as if that makes any difference to the issue?Are you suggesting that it's okay for cars to hit 22,000 pedestrians a year because drivers pay tax, so if cyclists want to hit people then they should pay tax too?
Vehicle Excise Duty is based on emissions, so should cars with low emissions also be banned from the roads since they "don't pay road tax"?
Funny how folk in the comments bleat on that cyclists should be subject to the same dangerous driving laws as drivers.
£2,200 for a cyclist killing a girl versus [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm ]£180 fine for a driver killing four cyclists losing control of car while driving at speed, on ice, with bald tyres[/url].
If people are going to point out the inaccuracy of the description of rhiannon bennett's death, then it's only fair to point out that the bald tyres weren't at all relevant to the crash.
I was going to say that too, balance in an argument is always a good thing as facts are often twisted. Also fair to point out that the driver in that incident in North Wales was the second person to lose control in exactly that spot that day and that police failed to post warnings after the first.
Don't really care for what the stats say, I had a cyclist run a red light and sent me flying resulting in stitches. They should not be treated any differently from any other road user.
Did you not look before stepping into the road? assuming that traffic is obeying the law can be a serious mistake, could have been something much more damaging than a cyclist.
Don't really care for what the stats say, I had a cyclist run a red light and sent me flying resulting in stitches. They should not be treated any differently from any other road user.
I don't think anyone would argue with this. But since serious injury/death is so rare why bring in specific legislation for it, given that 100s of times more people are killed by drivers and the existing laws that cover that aren't rigourously applied?
When this sort of thing comes up it's the assumption that because someone is suggesting there should be a law against something it must currently be absolutely legal. All the heid the baws commenting on that piece are thinking "it's ok for cyclists to murder children?? Well I'm not having that!!" same thing with drives using mobile phones, existing laws are fine, this is a waste of public money and a diversion from the real issues in society.
it's only fair to point out that the bald tyres weren't at all relevant to the crash.
I'm sure we've been over this but I don't really understand how having bald tyres can be irrelevant to a car skidding and spinning - I thought the tread was partly there for grip?
Plus the coroner in that case said it was "classic signs" of driving without due care and attention and "I fail to understand why no proceedings were brought against him".
Don't really care for what the stats say, I had a cyclist run a red light and sent me flying resulting in stitches. They should not be treated any differently from any other road user.
Agreed, but do you think a [u]Death[/u] By Dangerous Cycling law would have prevented that happening?
In fact, do you think a Death By Dangerous Cycling law would have any noticeable effect at all on the TWO deaths per year caused by cycling?
When a cause of death gets that rare there is no point making up specific laws about it, especially when it is covered by existing laws.
Food allergies cause around 10 deaths a year in the UK. So they could potentially save five times as many lives by banning peanuts.
That'll be a physics understanding fail then! 😉 Checked out out much trend F1 cars have in anything other than the wet where they have a tread for dispersion of water and how when they wanted them to have less grip to slow them down they added some?I thought the tread was partly there for grip?
Doesn't "tread for dispersion of water" work on ice then? I thought ice was slippy because it forms a film of water on it?
What tyres for dancing on ice?
Graham, I love the idea of the government banning peanuts!
Out with peanuts, in with cycling! Hurrah!
GrahamS - MemberI'm sure we've been over this but I don't really understand how having bald tyres can be irrelevant to a car skidding and spinning - I thought the tread was partly there for grip?
Tread clears water but it was found not relevant under those conditions, basically the accident investigation concluded he'd have slid and crashed regardless.
Doesn't "tread for dispersion of water" work on ice then? I thought ice was slippy because it forms a film of water on it?
I think that was a theory specifically about how skis or ice skates work.
Actually I was thinking about those videos of cars on an ice rink which demonstrate the advantages of snow tyres.
That's all about the compound.
That's all about the compound.
Ah right. So on that ice rink test bald tyres would outperform the same tyres with new treads because it has a greater surface area in contact with the ice. Fair enough, I can see that could be the case.
However, I still think having bald tyres should have contributed to the charge of dangerous driving in that case, regardless of whether they actually caused the accident or not, as he set out in a vehicle that wasn't roadworthy.
That's all about the compound.
Not just. They also have lots of very fine grooves for snow etc, but of course really good ice tyres have studs.