SUCK IT UP, GAMMONS.

---------------------------------

The introduction of a 'death by dangerous cycling' law, proposed by then-Transport Secretary Grant Shapps last year, is unlikely to be passed before the next general election due to a lack of parliamentary time.

According to The Sunday Telegraph (link is external), the Department for Transport has told campaigners, many of whom are bereaved relatives, that the proposed update to the law — which can currently see a cyclist who kills while riding recklessly jailed for a maximum of two years under the 1861 wanton or furious driving law — will struggle to be passed before the next election, expected to be held in January 2025.

https://road.cc/content/news/no-death-dangerous-cycling-law-near-future-301831

On 12/06/2023 09:01 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> SUCK IT UP, GAMMONS.
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> The introduction of a 'death by dangerous chav-cycling' law, proposed by then-Transport Secretary Grant Shapps last year, is unlikely to be passed before the next general election due to a lack of parliamentary time.
>
> According to The Sunday Telegraph (link is external), the Department for Transport has told campaigners, many of whom are bereaved relatives, that the proposed update to the law — which can currently see a chav-on-a-bike who kills while riding recklessly jailed for a maximum of two years under the 1861 wanton or furious driving law — will struggle to be passed before the next election, expected to be held in January 2025.
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/no-death-dangerous-cycling-law-near-future-301831

They could do it in 24 hours if the Opposition were willing to
co-operate to protect victims from chav-cyclists.

Matthew Briggs "become cowed by the militant fringes of the cycling lobby"

Delusional. While I understand his frustration at this utterly incompetent government, it is they rather than the cyclists delaying this. I can't recall any cycling organisation, or indeed, any cyclist, opposing this except on the grounds of balance: if drivers get away with it regularly, why should cyclists be more culpable?

"At the heart of this are grieving families calling for a very straightforward legal change which the government's own advisers recommended nearly seven years ago."

And they reccommended a comprehensive review of road laws to fix the glaring anomalies at the same time, but only the "death by dangerous cycling" law has been proposed. Not biased at all, but obviously pedestrians are worth a lot more than cyclists.

A DfT spokesperson added: "We are clear that dangerous cycling is completely unacceptable.

Such a pity they don't treat dangerous driving the same way. Slaughtering cyclists is allowable with any old flannel of an excuse, but cyclists have to prove their innocence.

I know this is victim blaming, but Matthew Briggs should by rights be campaigning for pedestrian helmets as Kim Briggs would most likely have survived hitting her head on the road if she had been wearing one.

Secret_squirrel | 3038 posts | 6 hours ago
10 likes
So who actually is campaigning for this law change apart from a tiny number of (rightfully) bitter people who's spouses have died. Does the size of the problem warrant the parliamentary time needed?

What about all the relatives of someone killed by Careless or Dangerous driving where the culprit doesnt feel the full weight of the law. Dont those relatives outweigh these ones by something like 300:1?

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Secret_squirrel | 3038 posts | 6 hours ago
> 10 likes
>
> So who actually is campaigning for this law change apart from a tiny
> number of (rightfully) bitter people who's spouses have died. Does the
> size of the problem warrant the parliamentary time needed?
>
> What about all the relatives of someone killed by Careless or Dangerous
> driving where the culprit doesnt feel the full weight of the law. Dont
> those relatives outweigh these ones by something like 300:1?

Ah! The old ‘it’s only a handful (of dead pedestrians)’ morally-corrupt
argument. What a disgraceful thing to say.

--
Spike

On 12/06/2023 09:28 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

[ ... ]

> I know this is victim blaming, but Matthew Briggs should by rights be campaigning for pedestrian helmets as Kim Briggs would most likely have survived hitting her head on the road if she had been wearing one.

It's not victim blaming.

You're simply trying to deflect blame from her killer, because he's a
chav-cyclist on a fairy-bike, just like you are.

Avatar
the little onion | 892 posts | 17 hours ago
13 likes

Any chance of a "dangerous pedestrian" law? From bitter experience, when you are injured because a pedestrian ran out in front of you when you are competently cycling along, the police have no recourse to action.

I'm not talking about acts of aggression like killer Auriol Grey, but negligence of people who run out onto the road without looking. Which, as previous cases have shown, can be fatal for cyclists.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Avatar
> the little onion | 892 posts | 17 hours ago
> 13 likes
>
> Any chance of a "dangerous pedestrian" law? From bitter experience, when
> you are injured because a pedestrian ran out in front of you when you are
> competently cycling along, the police have no recourse to action.
>
> I'm not talking about acts of aggression like killer Auriol Grey, but
> negligence of people who run out onto the road without looking. Which, as
> previous cases have shown, can be fatal for cyclists.

One of the most significant drawbacks to cyclist safety is the over-riding
imperative of avoiding taking any action that would involve using the
brakes to slow or stop, or changing direction.

--
Spike

We have to convince the world that the 1 or 2 people per year killed by bicycles is a freak accident.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2010

Please send me a better source, but as I undestand it, it is equally or more likely to get drown, burnt, bitten by a dog or wasps, struck by a lightning, suffocate in bed, cold, bad doctors.

What I don't fully understand is why people want to prosecute so badly cyclists in such rare accidents. Why so many people dislike cyclists? The only I may think that sometimes they can seem to slow down motor traffic and cycle routes take up space that would be attributed to cars. But when they see a 2m cycle route filled with bicycle don't they undestand how full roads would be with them having cars instead?

Stand by!

The morally-corrupt “it’s only a handful” (of dead pedestrians) argument is
being wheeled (sorry for the unintended pun) out again:

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have to convince the world that the 1 or 2 people per year killed by
> bicycles is a freak accident.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2010
>
> Please send me a better source, but as I undestand it, it is equally or
> more likely to get drown, burnt, bitten by a dog or wasps, struck by a
> lightning, suffocate in bed, cold, bad doctors.
>
> What I don't fully understand is why people want to prosecute so badly
> cyclists in such rare accidents. Why so many people dislike cyclists? The
> only I may think that sometimes they can seem to slow down motor traffic
> and cycle routes take up space that would be attributed to cars. But when
> they see a 2m cycle route filled with bicycle don't they undestand how
> full roads would be with them having cars instead?
>
>

--
Spike

the little onion | 894 posts | 1 hour ago
2 likes
Your annual reminder that mobility scooters kill more pedestrians in the UK than bicycles, but are not VED'd, insured, or have registration plates.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> the little onion | 894 posts | 1 hour ago
> 2 likes
>
> Your annual reminder that mobility scooters kill more pedestrians in the
> UK than bicycles, but are not VED'd, insured, or have registration plates.

You’ll need to post official data to back up that claim.

--
Spike

Jimmy Ray Will | 1399 posts | 17 min ago
0 likes

I personally struggle to see how a death by dangerous cycling conviction can be objectively administered when there is currently no legal obligation for cyclists to fully understand UK road laws.

Unless the act of 'dangerous cycling' is clearly defined and crucially widely understood, how can a jury fairly convict?

I am sure there will be some cut and dry cases, but this will only be a small percentage of an already tiny number of fatalities.

I can see a lot of frustrated relatives not getting justice in court, or indeed, a lot (ok tiny number but a large percentage) of conviction appeals unless there is some significant background work done.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jimmy Ray Will | 1399 posts | 17 min ago
> 0 likes

> I personally struggle to see how a death by dangerous cycling conviction
> can be objectively administered when there is currently no legal
> obligation for cyclists to fully understand UK road laws.

Good grief! Is that an argument?

“…there is currently no legal obligation for cyclists to fully understand
UK road laws”, just as in the same manner that ordinary members of the
public have no legal obligation to fully understand the tens of thousands
of laws that govern their lives.

Aren’t cyclists thick!

> Unless the act of 'dangerous cycling' is clearly defined and crucially
> widely understood, how can a jury fairly convict?

Because the law was broken! It’s only the judge and jury that need to
understand the law.

Cyclists will doubtless get a version of it from deeply knowledgable
cycling media sites such as road.cc…

> I am sure there will be some cut and dry cases, but this will only be a
> small percentage of an already tiny number of fatalities.

Ah! The morally-corrupt “it’s only a handful of dead pedestrians, after
all” argument.

> I can see a lot of frustrated relatives not getting justice in court, or
> indeed, a lot (ok tiny number but a large percentage) of conviction
> appeals unless there is some significant background work done.

Laughable.

--
Spike

On 13/06/2023 11:36 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> We have to convince the world that the 1 or 2 people per year killed by chav-bicycles is a freak accident.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2010
>
> Please send me a better source, but as I undestand it, it is equally or more likely to get drown, burnt, bitten by a dog or wasps, struck by a lightning, suffocate in bed, cold, bad doctors.
>
> What I don't fully understand is why people want to prosecute so badly chav-cyclists in such rare accidents. Why so many people dislike fairy-cyclists?

You are well aware of why people don't like fairy-cyclists on their
chav-bikes.

They (ie, you chav-bike-riders) are a load of entitled, selfish,
inconsiderate and totally self-centred chavs who have not a single
thought for the welfare of others.

Everyone knows that. And even you did.

joe9090 | 334 posts | 2 hours ago
3 likes
Weirdy beardy man still raging at ALL cyclists for the death of his mrs, who was not looking properly, while crossing the road not at a crossing, and likely distracted by smartphone use.
I think he needs to move on.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> joe9090 | 334 posts | 2 hours ago
> 3 likes
>
> Weirdy beardy man still raging at ALL cyclists for the death of his mrs,
> who was not looking properly, while crossing the road not at a crossing,
> and likely distracted by smartphone use.
> I think he needs to move on.

Ask ‘CyclingMikey’ what it is that motivates his particular crusade, and
then tell us how that is somehow different to those case you mention.

Perhaps you could tell him to ‘move on’?

Let us know how you get on.

--
Spike

"I'm absolutely fed up with them," he said. "All we are asking is that if a cyclist causes a pedestrian's death it should be treated in the same way as any other road accident with commensurate legislation."

really, is this really what he wants?

Quote:

"There was no such offence as causing death by careless driving and that would have been even worse from your point of view, when the maximum sentence would have been counted in terms of pounds rather than in terms of imprisonment.

"But Parliament recognised that there are rare cases when people die as a result of drivers’ careless driving [and] these new offences were brought into being.

"Both parties in this case agree the offence falls not the highest bracket of offending for causing death by careless driving, namely that the defendant’s driving fell not far short of dangerous driving. But it wasn’t dangerous driving, so it is not far short of dangerous driving..

"Just as Mr Coles and Mr Natale went out for a perfectly normal evening ride this defendant left work that night simply to drive home and spend that evening at home of a pleasant summer’s night. He did not go out to kill anybody. His driving was not dangerous, his inattention that lead to the deaths of these two men was to be counted in seconds. The consequences to him are nothing – nothing – like the consequences to these poor men, their families and friends. But they are serious consequences."

He concluded: "[I am] dealing with a man whose life has not been destroyed as the lives of Mr Coles and Mr Natale, but it has been completely altered negatively probably for the rest of his life.

"Do I suspend the sentence? Although it will disappoint many, I think I have been able to explain why I am going to suspend the sentence. He will have this hanging over his head for the rest of his life."