Death by Dangerous Cycling

Charmless Man said:
Remarkably difficult for your average punter to get up to a dangerous speed on a bike in a reasonably well populated area mind.

One thing which could be helpful for motorists and cyclists is to ban jaywalking like they do in some German states (or all of them?).
Click to expand...
30 is dangerous if you are not wearing a helmet or hit a kerb with your pelvis.
You’re never going to get rid of the risk of injury in any form of transport but you can manage that risk better by slowing down
 


den said:
A lot of drivers don't realise that many pavements are shared cycle paths, so not that many cyclists do actually break any rules.
Click to expand...
Queen Alexandra road isn’t a shared cycle path. The other lunchtime a bloke jumped on the path by the zebra crossing at the bottom, round the corner in front of Wilsons on the path and nearly took out two old dears standing at the bus stop in Tunstall Road. Traffic was quite quiet at the time so I think that was breaking the rules.
 
janiep said:
That’s whataboutery. One might as well go on to say cancer kills more than drivers, so let’s not worry about deaths caused by drivers.
Click to expand...

Nah it’s not. It’s the whole thrust of my argument. Let’s target road safety as a whole rather than targeting a relatively insignificant issue in the grand scheme of things.

I’ve said I wouldn’t have a problem with a law on death by dangerous cycling. I don’t think it will achieve much, however.

humbug said:
there you go and exactly the point i was making earlier on.
an updating of the law to apply to try to make cyclists more accountable somehow gets turned round to cyclists being the victims.
fwiw i don't cycle any more but used to, including the coast to coast several times and also lands end to john o groats a few years back. i make this point just in case i get branded anti cycling.
Click to expand...

It’s not making cyclists the victims at all. It’s suggesting roads could be safer for all if there were less cars on the road.
 
Charmless Man said:
Nah it’s not. It’s the whole thrust of my argument. Let’s target road safety as a whole rather than targeting a relatively insignificant issue in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with that, but in order to do do, you have to break it down into its constituent parts.
 
Charmless Man said:
Nah it’s not. It’s the whole thrust of my argument. Let’s target road safety as a whole rather than targeting a relatively insignificant issue in the grand scheme of things.

I’ve said I wouldn’t have a problem with a law on death by dangerous cycling. I don’t think it will achieve much, however.



It’s not making cyclists the victims at all. It’s suggesting roads could be safer for all if there were less cars on the road.
Click to expand...

tbh i think it's a bit callous to label any deaths insignificant. perhaps a change in the law will make people think about their actions a bit more?
the roads would be a lot safer if people just drove/cycled a bit more considerately.
 
I'd have been quite happy for the existing laws on causing death by careless driving and dangerous driving to be amended so that "by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle" was broadened to include bikes, horses, whatever, rather than proliferating different offences for different modes of transport.

At the same time I'd like to see the tests for what makes something 'dangerous' rather than 'careless' revised as some of the prosecutions for causing death by careless driving are ridiculous and should be prosecuted as dangerous driving and receive a stronger sentence. It's quite common to see reports of a cyclist or pedestrian who is killed because of driver inattention, but it ends up being a conviction for careless driving, a short ban and maybe a suspended sentence. For killing someone. Often the driver is arrested for dangerous driving, but the CPS charge it as careless, probably rather than risking not making dangerous stick. The law is broken, and although I have no problem with cycling being brought into the fold, there are hundreds of people a year dying due to careless or dangerous driving, and it seems ludicrous to address the numerically small problem of the first while leaving the second delivering real injustice.
 
humbug said:
tbh i think it's a bit callous to label any deaths insignificant. perhaps a change in the law will make people think about their actions a bit more?
the roads would be a lot safer if people just drove/cycled a bit more considerately.
Click to expand...

I obviously don’t mean it’s insignificant to the families affected.

You’re better than that, I’m sure.
 
Charmless Man said:
Remarkably difficult for your average punter to get up to a dangerous speed on a bike in a reasonably well populated area mind.

One thing which could be helpful for motorists and cyclists is to ban jaywalking like they do in some German states (or all of them?).
Click to expand...

Absolutely, the case where the lad killed that lass happened because she stepped out in front of him (possibly distracted by her phone???), illegal bike or not if she was paying 100% attention to the road instead of texting or whatever she would still be alive today.

Mind I'm not excusing him or owt because he was a of the highest order but you shouldn't be relying on road users avoiding you because you're not paying attention. I bet there's a fair few cyclists and drivers injured crashing after swerving then losing control to avoid bellend pedestrians.
 
Last edited:
A change makes sense. There needs to be some sensible measured ways of getting the message across to the minority of cyclists who cycle like wankers. It puts people at risk, gives all cyclists a bad name and generally increases frustration and anger towards cyclists, making roads more dangerous for us sensible considerate cyclists.

As for the pavement discussion, @den is correct, many paths are also shared cycle space, despite the wishful denial of the likes of @janiep. Cycling on them has to be considered with careful consideration by both. Pedestrains need to be aware they are sharing the space, keep a lookout and be willing to move to the side to allow cyclists to pass, cyclists need to slow down and give warnings. In one place near me, the seafront path is shared in a very busy area. Fine to cycle in winter when nobody is there, but there are so many people, especially old and kids, that it is madness to cycle down it during the summer. I take my chances in the traffic when there are too many people. Sadly a small few just try to go fast with their heads down, demanding people move.
 
DaveH said:
A change makes sense. There needs to be some sensible measured ways of getting the message across to the minority of cyclists who cycle like wankers. It puts people at risk, gives all cyclists a bad name and generally increases frustration and anger towards cyclists, making roads more dangerous for us sensible considerate cyclists.

As for the pavement discussion, @den is correct, many paths are also shared cycle space, despite the wishful denial of the likes of @janiep. Cycling on them has to be considered with careful consideration by both. Pedestrains need to be aware they are sharing the space, keep a lookout and be willing to move to the side to allow cyclists to pass, cyclists need to slow down and give warnings. In one place near me, the seafront path is shared in a very busy area. Fine to cycle in winter when nobody is there, but there are so many people, especially old and kids, that it is madness to cycle down it during the summer. I take my chances in the traffic when there are too many people. Sadly a small few just try to go fast with their heads down, demanding people move.
Click to expand...
I’d guess that pedestrians always have right of way.
 
A lot of cyclists drive too, so surely with a reasonable amount of ease their car insurance could cover them when cycling too.

I wouldn't be against cyclists having some kind of insurance too if they weren't drivers though. It would have to be quite cheap though.

Perhaps the cycling proficiency test should be compulsory.

Cycle paths should be far improved though.


How about pedestrians having insurance?
 

Back
Top