2018 consultation on Offences and Sentencing for people who cause death and injury whilst riding a bicycle

The government thinks it is a good idea to introduce new offences and sentencing guidelines to cover the - somewhat small - number of cases where someone riding a bike causes a serious injury, or death of someone else.

This has been prompted by a review that was - probably - kicked off by the Charlie A affair where it was felt that the punishment for dangerous cycling was too lenient and, correctly, that a Jury wouldn’t convict on Manslaughter (apparently they rarely do). In the end Charlie was sent down for Wanton and Furious, a somewhat arcane bit of legislation that carried a max sentence of two years.

The government are pitching this as creating ‘parity’ with people driving motor vehicles. So whereas now you can be fined for dangerous cycling, tried for manslaughter or wanton and furious, should this go ahead, you could be charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Cycling and face a (more) significant jail term.

I’m not entirely sure what to think about this.

There’s a consultation you can complete here where you can have your say, but given the way the consultation is worded, and the findings from the original report, it kinda feels like a done deal. I hope someone can correct me.

I’ve attached the original report and the consultation documents.

2 Attachments

• cycling-and-walking-investment-strategy-safety-review-proposals-for-new-cycling-offences.pdf
• cycle-safety-review-report.pdf

I started to fill out the on line consultation, but it was so biased in it's wording and options I gave up. Jeremy Vine (not so ninja edit. I hate getting old) was covering this on his R4 show earlier, I just ended up shouting at the radio!

Jeremy Kyle.... R4

What now?

Compulsory jury of cyclists to judge surely?

Sorry if I'm bein hard of thinking, Jeremy Kyle has a show on Radio 4 ?

Hah nope. Check the report. This concern is mentioned then brushed aside.

Anyway back to the "consultation" . Havin a consultation or havin a crack down, or are they doin both ? Seams odd like an odd way to encourage more active travel.

An entirely personal opinion, this is dog whistle politics aimed at the Tory party membership because Jess Norman the minster responsible for this is positioning for a shot at the leadership when May goes. This is a pander to the anti cycling Daily Mail brigade who will pick the next Tory leader, a bit like Boris endless maneuvers.

It won't do any good for cycling and actually hasn't got anything to do with cycling.

hasn't got anything to do with cycling.

Really needs to be about being responsible for your actions, and actually maybe we shouldn't discriminate the mode of travel and just put it on a level playing field.

The CTC hasn't put up its suggested response to this yet, but here's an earlier article. I agree with this line.

What’s needed

Our response to the DfT’s question about law changes relating to road safety and enforcement calls for a comprehensive review of road traffic offences and penalties, including:

• Reviewing the legal definitions of careless and dangerous driving, and whether this is the correct framework to determine and classify irresponsible and dangerous behaviour on our roads;
  
• More frequent use of driving disqualifications and for longer periods, to protect the public, including closing the ‘exceptional hardship’ loophole;
  
• Introducing a new offence of causing death or serious injury by car-dooring;
  
• Increased penalties for 'failing to stop' offences where the driver must or should have known there was a possibility of a serious or fatal injury.
  
  

These are gaps or failures in the law which Cycling UK believe need urgent attention, but I made the same points to the MoJ two years ago when responding to the Truss consultation and, as I’ve said many times, waiting for action from the MoJ has been like Waiting for Godot.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/review-road-traffic-offences-and-penalties-make-cycling-safer-why-wouldnt-you

In particular the 'careless/dangerous' pair needs to go. It creates grotesque problems--not only are the 'definitions' ('below/far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver') of the legal concepts nonsense, they have been shown not to work properly in a court situation many times over. How can you determine what's careless if you weren't the person potentially being careless, and what exactly is 'dangerous', especially if neither concept is defined so as to actually define 'careless' or 'dangerous'?

I was hoping you’d step in and provide a template response :)

maybe we shouldn't discriminate the mode of travel and just put it on a level playing field

I'd most certainly not agree with that. The more dangerous the mode, the stricter the laws.

I filled it in, putting mostly 'don't knows', but said no to the punishments being the same as driving.

Ha, cheers, but I'm afraid I'm not very good on the law, so you'd better look to the CTC to do that. :)

There's a really pernicious notion of 'fairness' that creeps into these discussions about parity between modes of transport.

My opinion on the specific proposals isn't fully formed yet, but I'm totally with @Jezston that it's dangerous to start from the assumption that all modes should be treated equally. That way madness, and registration plates for cyclists, lie.

You operate the heavy machinery on the public highway, you get held to the higher standards.

That somewhat overlooks the outcome.
Surely the higher standards are in the testing required to operate larger vehicles.

I like others haven't fully formed my opinion either. Might improving accountability improve perception of cyclists, perhaps I'm being optimistic there.

Fuck me. Got 3/4 of the way through, typing very considered responses and the connection reset so it was all lost. CUNTS.

:(

Surely the higher standards are in the testing required to operate larger vehicles.

For starters, but also IMO it is right that there is scope for stricter rules and regs that operators of those vehicles must follow on the road, which as I understand it is already the case under the Road Traffic Act.

I see what you mean about outcome, but it still feels like a huge waste of time that could be better spent in so many other ways.

Do you not think that the punishment should be proportional to the crime committed regardless of the mode of transport?

Vis penalising cyclists by banning them: Currently, if you somehow manage to get banned as a driver you can still cycle. So, proven to have been unfit to drive, you can still-by the governments view-be at liberty to recklessly cycle? And, if you get banned from cycling, can you still drive?

It's totally nonsensical to ban someone from a statistically safe method of transport but permit them to continue to engage in one that is considerably more dangerous. The issue of penalising cyclists £1000's for an activity that primarily endangers themselves is also misplaced and seems solely intended to stroke the cock of whatever special interest groups are whispering in there ears.

I’m in favour of more regulation as is the case for bus/ lorry drivers etc. I’m not sure I’m in favour of a stronger penalty if a bus driver kills a pedestrian over say a car driver. Apologies if I’ve misinterpreted what you mean.

I’d agree that it’s a misuse of time but that said if it helps perceptions and means addition of other laws like car dooring are more viable then I think I’d be broadly in favour.

I always thought we should have the "presumed liability / strict liability" like other countries. With all forms of transport, people should be more careful and considerate of more vulnerable people.

The survey is awful. It just feels like its been created to appeal to Daily Mail readers.

"We can't give you Brexit but look, we're persecuting cyclists for you?"

I saved all my ire for the ‘any further comments’ bit at the end.
Undoubtedly an utter waste of time and effort but I at least managed to release some of the stress built up by partaking in the ‘consultation’.

A complete waste of legislative time, but nobody in politics seems to care about the underlying numbers. Were it not for the costs involved, I'd support some kind of parity, although I suspect justice may not reliably be served for the very small number of cyclists who have to face it because of the widespread hate there is for cyclists. There is also the fact that every radio debate I hear about this turns into a cyclists are cunts fest.