Dangerous cyclists face life in prison.

The latest wheeze from the Tories.

Mark Harper has promised to change the law so that dangerous cyclists face the same punishments as dangerous drivers.

Mr Harper said: “Dangerous cyclists who kill or seriously injure others should face the same penalties as other road users. Today I have agreed a way forward to ensure the Criminal Justice Bill contains powers to hold irresponsible cyclists to account, paving the way for even safer streets.

So, let me get this right, riding recklessly on something that weighs 15kg and exposes the rider to significant injury will be treated exactly the same way as a driver in safety controlling something that weighs 100 times as much.

FFS.

And exactly what proportin of drivers that kill get that sentence? Or even a custodial sentence for that matter.

Just more culture war red meat for the gammons, I suspect they’ll be turfed out before they get it through parliament.

Ignore it, it’s just more culture war bollocks

I’m with Spin  – it’s yet more bollocks intended to grab a few headlines.

Spin has the salient point.
Sweepstake on the GE? I reckon October.

Had a **** in a Golf overtake me just after I indicated to turn right, outside my house, in a quiet village, but  yeah, it’s cyclists we need to worry about.

You’d almost imagine it’s cyclists that kill five people a day in the UK, and injure many more.

Anyway, @spin has it.

There was something about making sure bikes are roadworthy which will be totally unenforceable if they can’t catch the 1m uninsured/unlicensed drivers.

Spin has a point, which I agree with, but to go against the consensus here, if someone does something dangerous which endangers other people shouldn’t the penalty be the same regardless of how they were endangering those other people? The penalty for doing it in a lorry is the same as in a car or on a motorbike, but a lorry is more dangerous than a motorbike in the same way that a car is more dangerous than a bike, its the fact that people were endangered which is the salient point.

And I would put injuring someone on an illegally modified ebike in the same category as injuring someone with a car which has failed it’s MOT, neither should have been out on the road and the rider/driver should be punished accordingly. Yes, the modified ebike is less likely to cause an injury in a collision as it’s smaller, and much harder to detect than an MOT failure showing up on ANPR, but if it does cause an injury the intent was the same so the punishment should be too

This is such bullshit, hopefully won’t make it to actual law. Amusingly I have met Mark Harper while out on the bike, he walks his dogs near the Beaver area/Pludds trails in the FoD

Spin has a point, which I agree with, but to go against the consensus here, if someone does something dangerous which endangers other people shouldn’t the penalty be the same regardless of how they were endangering those other people? The penalty for doing it in a lorry is the same as in a car or on a motorbike, but a lorry is more dangerous than a motorbike in the same way that a car is more dangerous than a bike, its the fact that people were endangered which is the salient point.

the RANGE of penalties open to the court would be the same regardless of driving a lorry, a car or a motorbike.  The actual sentence will take into account the circumstances and a lorry driver may be more likely to face a harsher punishment because of the obviously greater risk and because professional drivers are expected to behave better.  It’s virtually unheard of for people to be sentenced at the previous maximum 14 years, never mind the new max life.  You would really have had to set out to cause harm or have multiple agitating factors to even get into the consideration for that.   Its almost impossible to imagine a circumstance where a cyclist could somehow achieve anything close to the maximum sentence – bear in mind that Parliament sets the range of sentences but judges act independently of government to determine the appropriate sentence.  Currently anyone who met the standard would be very likely to be prosecuted for manslaughter and could be imprisoned for life (theoretically) anyway.

as everyone knows the evidential burden for bringing a prosecution against drivers is quite high.  If anything the burden will be higher against cyclists.  It’s difficult to get too upset about it, but it’s unlikely to be a priority for the statute book before the election.  Of course Starmer hasn’t really set out his stall on what nonsense he will ditch or allow to quietly wither.  As a former DPP he’ll not be losing sleep over the inability jail cyclists for life, he may not have the balls to say that and lose some daily mail voters.

The danger with this is that it opens (wider) the door for a political war on bicycle users for the pleasing of the rabid gammons.  Knee jerk legislation is rarely good legislation. License plates, helmet compulsion, mandatory cycle path use they’ll all keep getting dragged up and wasting parliamentary time in the face of much more pressing issues.

Even if they go nowhere they’ll keep getting dragged up at every opportunity as the metaphorical dead cats and they’ll be a distraction from fixing our national car dependency/addiction and utterly embarrassing driving standards and me first attitude (the ones driving 5 deaths a day).

For the small volume of cyclist induced deaths a year there are existing alternatives (and we’ve seen them used in a couple of high profile cases in the last decade or so).

So, let me get this right, riding recklessly on something that weighs 15kg and exposes the rider to significant injury will be treated exactly the same way as a driver in safety controlling something that weighs 100 times as much.

Not sure what point your making there,

I read that if you kill somone whilst riding a bike the same laws should apply if you kill someone whilst in a car. That sounds logical to me

Cyclists who kill people face life in prison, the Transport Secretary has announced.

Mark Harper has promised to change the law so that dangerous cyclists face the same punishments as dangerous drivers.

I read that if you kill somone whilst riding a bike the same laws should apply if you kill someone whilst in a car. That sounds logical to me

The problem is that in the very rare (2-3 times a year at most) cases where a cyclist kills a pedestrian it’s usually very murky as to who’s really at fault (as in the Regent’s Park case and the well-known Charlie Alliston case, the pedestrian stepped straight into the path of the riders) and the cyclist almost invariably gets way more jail time than any killer driver ever does.

The media is full of stories of drivers killing people “in accidents” and then getting off with suspended sentences, fines, points and sometimes not even that.

Ignoring the clickbsit and inaccurate thread title 😉

Reckless cyclists should be held accountable, but I’m sure it’s possible to do so under current legislation.

This is potentially the thin end of the wedge for legislating against cycling though. The next “logical” step is compulsory insurance.

the trouble here is in court drivers have “there but for the grace of God go I” “protecting” them not so much for a cyclist.

And I would put injuring someone on an illegally modified ebike in the same category

Assuming you mean one which can do 30mph or similar then any “cyclist” law unless badly written wouldnt apply anyway.

They are motorbikes and hence the laws applicable to motorbikes would apply.

Dangerous cyclists face life in prison.

Pre-election rubbish brought to you by the same government who are releasing prisoners early because they don’t have space in over-crowded prisons

Chris Boardman was on BBC breakfast news this morning. He made it clear in the nicest possible way that this is a waste of time, as we need more people on bikes and not fewer. He also said that more people get killed in lightening strikes or by cows per year, than cyclists.

Just about to take my elderly mother out who will no doubt ask me my opinion (she’s not a fan of people who cycle). This thread will come in handy.

Easy to set up a stop on a bike path and run checks.   We had it in Edinburgh a few years back looking for lighting and berating the non helmet wearers.   A PITA, but if repeated with sanctions, rather worrying.

Every day another petty culture war initiative.

Just listened to Chris Boardman on Radio 4

Stats 3 people killed by bike in a year, more chance of being killed by lightning or cows. 30,000 by vehicles !

We all know it’s perfectly fine to murder someone in a car – you’ll get a slap on the wrists.

What has there been, a couple of deaths in the last few years caused by idiot cyclists.

Just how many people have driver’s killed ‘yesterday’ alone !

if you kill somone whilst riding a bike the same laws should apply if you kill someone whilst in a car. That sounds logical to me

Me too. The stats make don’t really matter; so what if motor vehicles kill 5 a day and cyclists 1 in, what, 5 years? The only thing that keeps it’s fair is whether the law is evenly enforced so that the greater risk of prison is on motorists.

Not all cyclists are STW good sorts, some tools out there ride like cocks so if, in doing so, they killed someone then punishment should match. Shirley?

EDIT: And if stops the Gammon bleating about cyclists “getting away with murder” then even better.

All fits in with the “ban it harder” lawmaking as a headline grabber.

Basically take something which there is already a law applicable which gives sensible penalties and create a new law for a specific purpose with harsher penalties.

They’ve done it with:

new bill that will make the “abduction” of a pet cat or dog punishable by up to five years in prison

“criminal damage to memorials”, punishable by up to ten years in prison

Apparently Labour is getting in on it too – considering a new offence of “fraud against the public purse”

Banning stuff is cheap, actually enforcing existing laws requires sustained investment over time.

This government and their backbenchers can’t abide the idea of their Hedge-fund managing donor class paying tax, or a sane trading relationship with the EU to boost the economy so we get option A.

The Police are constantly being given new ‘powers’ when what they actually want is more resources and to be able to pay their experienced officers better so that they stay in the force.

Not all cyclists are STW good sorts, some tools out there ride like cocks so if, in doing so, they killed someone then punishment should match. Shirley?

And if we take the recent headline case the punishment currently does. A driver killing a pedestrian who stepped out in front of them wouldnt bother the headlines unless the car was doing something like 100 in a 30 zone.

All fits in with the “ban it harder” lawmaking as a headline grabber.

Unless its a law regarding drivers in which case the headline is “wahhhhh war on motorists”.

They’re doing a phone-in on five live about this at the moment

Suffice to say that this has hit the intended target market perfectly for Rishi and Co. There’s been a steady succession of bitter, moaning old giffers droning on and on about cyclists not paying road tax, not having insurance and jumping red lights 🙄

The BBC News website also mentions paedophiles and people who sexually abuse dead people within the same article about ‘dangerous cyclists’.

Really nice to group the three together.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016715

berating the non helmet wearers.

And they’d have been ‘politely’ told to FO by me.

Is this going to be a “death by …….” law only, or a “cycling without due care and attention”?

The former I couldn’t care less about, existing laws are more than sufficient it seems to give the few cyclists it applies to far longer sentences than similar drivers already.

The latter would be a worry as it’s a matter of interpretation.  No team timetrials, bit’n’bit, chaingangs or pacelines on solid center markings? Eating and drinking on the move? Clubruns are going to be a nightmare if drafting was treated the same as tailgating, and people who can’t get out the saddle smoothly without dropping back half a wheel in the group got treated like brake checking.

Yes it covers careless cycling – 5 years in prison….

27C Causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling
A person who causes the death of another person by riding a cycle on
a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without
reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is
guilty of an offence.”

I’m waiting for Iain Duncan Smith to have a photo-op in a church car park where he’s measuring the speed of Range Rovers…

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqvnvpxejv8o

Imagine the absolute outcry if this had been a cyclist instead of a Range Rover.

Sir Chris Boardman putting things nicely into perspective, once again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0hyb4h7

Clubruns are going to be a nightmare if drafting was treated the same as tailgating,

Ignored?

A driver killing a pedestrian who stepped out in front of them wouldnt bother the headlines unless the car was doing something like 100 in a 30 zone.

Because unless there is excessive speed tbe driver hasn’t broken the law, as with cyclists.

When I’m driving I don’t worry about the interpretation element of driving without due care, so why should I worry about it when riding?

Dangerous driving and Dangerous cycling are obviously both wrong but equally obviously not equivalent in terms of risk and impact.

What about new laws for Dangerous walking, Waking without due care and Attention, etc….

It’s almost amusing to see which straws the Government are trying to grasp to look strong on law and order whilst they simultaneously delay court cases and increase early releases.

the pedestrian stepped straight into the path of the riders) and the cyclist almost invariably gets way more jail time than any killer driver ever does.

You shouldn’t be riding fast enough to kill someone around pedestrians. That’s the reckless part.  I once nearly hit an old lady when I was going a fair old lick on a downhill cyclepath, due to her doing something I didn’t expect.  She could very easily have died.  It was 100% my fault I was being a dick. Had that happened, should I have got a softer punishment than someone who was being a dick in a car?

Dangerous driving and Dangerous cycling are obviously both wrong but equally obviously not equivalent in terms of risk and impact.

Death by dangerous cycling or driving are equivalent in impact – someone dies.  Clearly, killing someone is less likely on a bike but if you hit someone and they don’t die you won’t get done for death by dangerous cycling will you?

Dangerous cycling and dangerous driving aren’t equivalent, in risk of course, but I suspect the penalties aren’t currently equivalent. I think it’s called ‘furious cycling’ though.

If a cyclist rides recklessly and kills or seriously injured someone because of that then they should face the same penalty * as if they had been driving a car. The object they use to cause such death or injury is imo irrelevant. If I beat someone to death with a tennis bat, I’d be treated no differently than if I shot them with a gun as the result is the same. Obviously it’s far more likely that you’ll kill someone in a car than on a bike however

* most likely a slap on wrist and suspended sentence

You shouldn’t be riding fast enough to kill someone around pedestrians. That’s the reckless part.

Define around pedestrians? On a shared path or cycling along a road when a pedestrian decides to step out in front?

A cursory look shows the attitude towards cyclists is far more extreme. If a pedestrian steps unexpectedly in front of a car it would be unlikely to make the headlines yet with cyclists we have IDS and the heil using it as part of their crusade against cyclists.

Cant find the quote right now but even had the IDS going on about illegally fast ebikes without being bright enough to notice if they are illegal then laws aimed at cyclists wouldnt apply to them.

I’m very dubious about the reason for bringing in this law though I’m happy to abide by it. If I kill or injure someone whilst riding my bike and it’s my fault and I see no reason why I shouldn’t be judged in the same way as anyone else causing death or injury. Bear in mind manslaughter has the same sentencing guidelines as dangerous driving (and now dangerous cycling). Frankly I would scrap the “death by….” laws altogether and simply apply one common manslaughter law.

Anyway, if you don’t drive or ride recklesly or dangerously you aren’t going to have a problem are you?

What would make it your fault though? No reflectors on your pedals? Hands not covering the brakes? Travelling at 25mph in a 20 zone with no means of knowing your exact speed? This law needs some proper scrutiny.