Re Cycling Responsibly

August 7, 2022 Longrider General News, Political, Transport 32

What’s good for the goose and all that…

Cyclists who kill pedestrians could be prosecuted in the same way as motorists under a proposed government crackdown.

I would have thought this an uncontroversial concept. If you kill someone through reckless behaviour, then you pay the price. However, the cycling lobby seems not to like the idea…

Shapps wrote in the Mail+ that a “selfish minority” of cyclists believe they are “immune” to red lights.

Minority?

“We need the cycling equivalent of death by dangerous driving to close a gap in the law and impress on cyclists the real harm they can cause when speed is combined with lack of care,” he said.

“For example, traffic lights are there to regulate all traffic. But a selfish minority of cyclists appear to believe that they are somehow immune to red lights.

“We need to crack down on this disregard for road safety. Relatives of victims have waited too long for this straightforward measure.”

Under the 1991 Road Traffic Act, a maximum fine of £1,000 can be issued for careless cycling and £2,500 for dangerous cycling. If bodily harm is caused, cyclists can be prosecuted for wanton and furious driving under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, for which the maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.

I don’t know if new law is really required though. We still have manslaughter laws and there is fatality under the offences against the persons act, so perfectly good statutes with which to prosecute offenders. It would seem that there has been a lack of will in the past. But if that is to change, then that’s a good thing. Riding a bicycle does not and should not make you immune from your duty of care to those around you.

32 Comments

  1. But if a cyclist self-identifies as a police(person?) in a hurry (or having pursuit training?) can he then claim an exemption?
    Seriously though, on the infrequent occasions when I read that a cyclist has died in a traffic accident, I always make a point of seeing whether or not the driver has been arrested – if he hasn’t then that gives a very strong indication of where the blame is perceived to lie.

    • Er, no.

      I believe emergency vehicles can treat red lights as give way signs, they can’t just go barreling through them

  2. Cyclists can be convicted for ‘wanton and furious driving’ under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948) if they cause bodily harm to any person. They are then guilty of a misdemeanour and could, at the discretion of the court, be imprisoned for up to two years.

    https://www.eta.co.uk/cycling-and-the-law/ {about half way down in the FAQs}

  3. Just have special weeks when cyclists cycling without due care, or without lights at night, are *inevitably* arrested and prosecuted. Impound the cycle until the court appearance too. That will set the new standards.

    We don’t need new laws so much as we need enforcement of the ones that already exist.

  4. “Minority?”

    In my experience, yes. Even in many of the YouTube clips of cyclists jumping red lights, you’ll see other cyclists stopping

    I see more drivers than cyclists jumping red lights but then, they might just be cyclists who happen to be driving that day. Undercover cyclists?

    And why are drivers so obsessed with red light jumping cyclists anyway? Is it to deflect attention away from their own law breaking? “My speeding is perfectly acceptable but your red light jumping is a heinous crime.” Take the beams out of your own eyes.

    • I observe all sorts of bad behaviour on the roads on a daily basis and as I am usually with a couple of riders on L plates, we often get the brunt of it (tailgating and inappropriate overtaking being a regular occurrence). I see very few cyclists behaving appropriately at traffic lights. Indeed, when I see one stopping, it causes me a raised eyebrow (see also those hideous E scooters). Yes, I see drivers accelerating to get through and crossing on the red, too. That doesn’t alter the point though – the road traffic act applies to all road users and should be enforced equally across the board.

    • I rarely see drivers jumping red lights, it’s so infrequent it’s remarked on. I have, however, given up remarking on cyclists…

      And don’t get me started on those bloody scooters!

  5. I think it’s time for the Highway Code to impose duties on cyclists. For example:
    No group of cyclists to exceed 4 on roads shared with motor vehicles. A larger number of cyclists must split into groups of 4 with 3 or more car lengths between groups at all times.
    On narrow roads (or all roads subject to a speed limit of 30mph or less), groups of cyclists must ride in single file, not side-by-side; and group size must be limited to 2. Inter-group gaps to be as above.

  6. Given that drivers get away with killing people on a daily basis, I can’t see that this change to the law will make a huge amount of difference to the less than a handful of cyclists annually whose actions result in someone dying.

    • I’m not convinced that they do get away with it. A death will result in a prosecution and if successful, a custodial sentence. We can have an argument about how appropriate that sentence is. However, even if the number of fatalities caused by cyclists are invariably much fewer, bad cycling should be treated in exactly the same way and fatalities rigorously prosecuted with appropriate sentencing.

      I tend to agree with Discoveredjoys that new laws aren’t really needed, just use the existing ones appropriately.

  7. Every time I read one of those cyclists who wear a full-body condom die I drink from my special glass. That’s just the way I roll.

  9. Like you, LR, I think that first sentence of your article is pure bullshit. You should, and can be punished for killing someone, no matter how you did it under current laws because they cover all aspects of life, not just road use. Manslaughter for example. In my view cyclists ought to be subject to exactly the same rules of the road as any other vehicle, which means that even if they are exempted from VED they need some kind of insurance and a registration. Their bad behaviour on the roads is encouraged by not being held accountable. On the other side, my registration makes me traceable for prosecution. And trying to get past these twats on rural roads is like watching paint dry. They just pedal harder and try to shut the door on you.

    To those saying its only a minority, I say try running the gauntlet every sodding night for 13 years, in a car on unlit country roads. That minority quickly grows. The article is only concerned with inner city cycling and pedestrians. Look elsewhere and you get a different story – riding in huge gangs blocking the road, wobbling around in front of you in the centre of the road, no lights, no kind of head gear. Accidents waiting to happen, and of course its always the motorist at fault and the one who pays.

    I’m more concerned with injury caused by reckless behaviour which is what seems to fly under the radar, such as riding bicycles and e-scooters across pedestrian crossings and along pavements, two abreast on narrow B roads, which as far as I know are legal things to do in the sense that there is no specific law against it (I may be wrong on the two abreast one).

  10. Bikes should be insured and licensed with rear number plates. Anyone riding an unlicensed and uninsured bike needs to be stopped, fined and the bike impounded.

    The reason that cyclists behave with such utter disregard is their are few sanctions to their dangerous behaviour until they actually seriously injure somebody.

    Placing appropriate duties on cyclists as other road users would introduce a measure of equity as well as removing anonymity.

    I remember watching one lycra clad nutcase lash out against a car driver, smashing the drivers wing mirror over some perceived slight. The cyclist was able to just cycle off after the incident with impunity because he was effectively anonymous and unidentifiable.

  11. In London last week for the Great British Beer Festival, I came out of Olympia just after 10pm and saw someone on an electric scooter going down Hammersmith Road, in the dark, without lights. That idiot could easily have caused death by dangerous scootering. Not sure what the law is for those fools.

    • Effectively none. Plod just ignores them and they carry on with impunity, at least the majority ethnics that seem to ride these things. No doubt a middle class white guy would get the book thrown at them.

  12. Is it ‘in vino veritas’ that Latin phrase that means that people reveal their true personality when they’re pissed? I think that a similar thing occurs when people get on the road, whatever their chosen mode of transport might be. If you drive or ride like an inconsiderate dick then you are one, you just hide it better in your every day life.

  13. What’s the difference between a motorcyclist and a cyclist?

    A cyclist thinks his safety is everybody else’s responsibility, not his.

    A motorcyclist thinks everybody on the road is actively out to kill him.

  14. It’s interesting how suddenly the state is your friend when it comes to registering and insuring people riding bicycles, so that the majority will be inconvenienced for the minority who doesn’t give a shit anyway.

    There are laws already, let’s try and apply them.

  15. Given the fondness of pro lockdowners, ultra hard leftists and environmentalists for cycling and by extension Cyclists shouldn’t they be considered potential fifth columnists and sanctioned on principle?

  16. Most cyclists where i live don’t obey any rules at all. Traffic lights and pedestrian crossings don’t exist for them. They cycle at speed in 20mph zones. They are always on pavements. Scooters are the same. They should be taxed, insured, and display a licence plate. It won’t be long before i have to take a baseball bat to them on my evening walk. Heaven help you if you are blind and deaf.

  17. Sooo… on the one hand we have pedestrians who generally weigh 100 to 250ish pounds and travel routinely at between 1 and 4 mph.

    On the other hand we have cars that weigh in at 2,000 to 3,000 pounds and travel routinely at 15 to 60+ mph.

    Now, consider the cyclist: weighs a bit less than the average pedestrian, but comes with a bicycle that weighs about 20 to 30 pounds (about 1/100th the weight of a car) and routinely travels at between 5 and 10 or so mph.

    Additionally the car has a size footprint of perhaps 50 to 60 square feet, the pedestrian maybe about 3, and the cyclist about 4 or 5.

    The cyclist *IS* a different animal than a pedestrian, but it is by NO means a car.

    Pedestrians ignore red lights all the time, and often push by each other with physical contact along sidewalks without a hint of apology, and they almost certainly cause a fair share of accidents and deaths as motorists try to avoid their unexpected appearance against red lights and such — and I don’t see anyone calling for vigorous law enforcement against them.

    I would go with the school that calls for enforcement of reckless endangerment charges if a pedestrian or a cyclist behaves in such a way that they are putting others at risk. I do NOT think they should be treated as 3,000 pound behemoths that all too often travel a lot closer to 60mph than 5 or 10 mph.

    I also hold the admittedly heretical belief that cyclists willing to travel very slowly and with great consideration and extra space for any pedestrians they might pass, sometimes have a place on “pedestrian walkways” more than on an open road with (what I like to call…) Killermobiles.

    Anyone seriously considering this whole problem area should take a few minutes to read an article I had published in 1976 in WIN Magazine, and now housed at https://assortedtopics.quora.com/Free-Peoples-Transit and consider the points I made back then.

    – MJM, still cycling, though a bit more slowly, almost 50 years later… (much to the annoyance of the Antismokers out there… LOL!)

    • The issue here isn’t about relative weight or the damage that they might cause in an impact, it’s that the law applies to all and should be enforced equally. A cyclist jumping a red light causing another road user to take avoiding action is dangerous regardless.

      • But we don’t ‘already’ have laws in place – for example, if a cyclist caused me, a motorist, to take evasive measures and I crashed my car or damaged someone else’s, the cyclist carries on his way scot free while I pick up the tab. Sure, I can let my insurance pay out but that results in a few years of high premiums. I still end up paying and the cyclist, who caused it all in the first place can’t be traced.

        In my view, any form of transport, be it electric, petrol or pedal powered, whose wheels touch the road should be equally accountable. That means registrations for all forms of transport and a minimum of insurance. Because of their small footprint I don’t agree that cyclists should pay VED but registration would make them traceable in any situation such as described above, and insurance to pay for any damage they cause. If this was the case I believe you would see most of the bad behaviour disappear overnight.

        I’m not saying that cyclists must have insurance just because I have to, road users have insurance for a very obvious reason. Also, is any kind of official training/test in place for cyclists? (genuine question). The very minimum would have to be knowledge of the highway code before being allowed on a road.

      • “the law should apply”

        Note that I’m not saying that no law should apply to cyclists. I am simply saying the laws should similar to those applied to pedestrians. If I, as a pedestrian, blatantly jog through a red light and cause an accident, I should be held just as responsible as a cyclist who does the same.

        I’ll grant that cyclists may be less “responsible” in their behaviors than pedestrians of the same age, but I don’t think the difference is as great as we might commonly think.

        There’s also the option, one that would save lives all around, to require cyclists to take a lane on the roadways and for motor traffic to either change lanes to pass them, or put up with their likely lower speed. A rule such as that could be supplemented by one stating that cyclists on the road need to travel at 5mph (8kph?) or above while those on walkways travel at 4mph (6kph?) or below — with the cars respecting the cyclists and the cyclists respecting the pedestrians.

Comments are closed.