UKC

Now it seems that cyclists can be jailed for 14 years for causing death by reckless riding. 

Given that even a  cyclist riding fast can only apply a force of the order of 10 newton meters to a pedestrian. The obvious but highly unlikely outcome of the either party falling badly resulting in a fatal head injury  I can't see how any court of law proving that a cycling accident was caused by a cyclist ignoring an obvious risk. The physics just doesn't work. The cyclist just isn't heavy enough to present such a risk.

Cars on the other hand present an obvious and perceivable danger to cyclists and pedestrians even when driven well. 

This new penalty make no sense at all to me. 

Eh??

Edit:

A cyclist going at say 20mph hitting a pedestrian is going to cause a lot of damage to both (Newton metres isn't a force unit). I'm doubt a new law is needed (some exist already) but the idea a cyclist can't hurt others in nonsense.

It seems pretty obvious to me. Here are a few obvious examples from the top of my head:

• Cyclist runs a red light and mows down a pedestrian crossing the road, killing them.
• Cyclist cycles a non-road-legal bike and mows down a pedestrian, killing them.
• Cyclist is head-down on their phone and mows down a pedestrian, killing them.

Those are all obvious risks, and the death has been caused by the cyclist ignoring them. It doesn't seem like a difficult concept to get one's head around.

Of course they can. I think this law is a way of targeting modded ebikes mostly

I really don't think the OP has any science to back that bit up, it's just torque.

Or possibly energy, which might be relevant.  But the number is clearly nonsense.

Not just danger to pedestrians. A cyclist riding recklessly on the road could very easily cause a driver to take evasive action that results in an accident/injury. Or in your case of running red lights, yes the cyclist will come off worst against a car, but the car (and it's occupants) can also be hurt/damaged as a direct result of the cyclists actions. 

It makes an awful lot more sense than your post.

notwithstanding the incorrectly identified units - I mean't Nms^-1. In all of the above examples the danger posed by the cyclists actions is a tiny fraction of that caused if a car did the same. The cyclist carries much less momentum, the cyclist is much smaller. Consequently both the risk of a collision and the consequences of the collision are much much less. Understanding that, its not a reckless thing to do - its  just inconsiderate.

That also isn't a force unit...  What are you taking about?

If I crash into you while on my bike, while I'm doing 40MPH or more, and you are on foot, the consequences of the collision are going to be that both of us are going to be either dead or very injured. The rest is all bollocks.

Let us know how you get on when 100kg mass travelling at 20mph hits you.

You've got big balls to be going that fast 

Just need pedestrians to be able to be charged with walking recklessly for the trifecta.

First recipient should be the twonk who walked out into a signalised junction with a phone clamped to his ear in the direction traffic was coming from, right in front of a cyclist in the lane next to me. When he belatedly realised, he then ran straight in front of me, phone still clamped. I clipped him but stayed upright and fortunately so did he. Both of us could have ended up under the wheels of the artic behind me. Darwin Award seeking prat.

Watt is going on with all these masstakes he is making. Torque about making a balls up. He must be under a lot of pressure at the moment.

I can do that already having been hit by a pedestrian who didn;t look when crosing the cycle lane I was on, and walked straight into my path. We were both fine thank you. No injury done. I only weigh 65kgs though.

And no I don';t think the pedestrian in that case acted recklessly so if I had died I wouldn't expect her to go to jail for 14 years. Its inconsiderate to not look when crossing a cycle lane but not a partcularly dangerous thing to do.

I've been hit by a lorry too. That hurt a hell of a lot more.

I have unfortunately taken up running and the number of people walking along paths with dog going one way on a lead and them the other when they see someone coming. Or just a group of 3+ who occupy the entire path and expect some kind of telepathy for them to know who's going to move out of the way.

"Shared spaces" are the worst - especially when there are marks on the path for pedestrians and cyclists to be next to each other, and the pedestrians just wander anywhere.

When going downhill I can't help myself, although I do stick to the speed limits (even though they don't technically apply) and slower still if there are people around etc. It's reckless, to be entirely honest.

The thing is, I don't need to be doing 40 to kill someone. If I were to hit someone doing 20-25, which I can maintain on the flats, it will still not end well for anyone involved. To put it in mutt's terms, 20MPH for a 90kg combined mass is 3.6kJ of kinetic energy. Dissipating that energy into someone or into a wall won't be pretty.

Checks profile. Oh good, doesn't live anywhere near me.

Have you thought about a different hobby? Chess perhaps, online.

I think it's mostly a ploy to appeal to angry Daily Mail / Telegraph readers, to be honest. If the government actually gave a wet damn about pedestrian safety or road safety in general then they'd be tightening up the rules (and enforcement) around dangerous driving and wouldn't be constantly pushing back against LTNs and suchlike.

It's clearly 100% time wasting faux culture wars bullsh*t Chris Boardman was on the Today programme this morning with the stats about how vanishingly small an issue this is compared to the horrifically huge number of car related road deaths 

Edit: link to 5 live interview as he says it better than me 

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

Hey, don't encourage him - online chess is hard enough as it is. I'm just a couple of hours away from playing in my 214th consecutive local-league Thursday evening tournament, where I'm 0/10 against the recently arrived strong Ukrainian and can't really see how that won't become 0/30 in due course.

The new law will be for dangerous or careless cycling. Not reckless.

Lots of case law as to which is which for motorists so expect similar for cyclists.

Not really needed but it does stop having to rely on laws from 100 years ago.

That would have a force of over 15 Fahrenheit. Or in metric, eleven hectares. 

On modded ebikes those would be motoring offences.

There are degrees of recklessness.   Of course cyclists can be reckless, even if the consequences of their recklessness are less severe.

If there's a risk of being injured by a cyclist, that would seem to make an inconsiderate action automatically dangerous. Possibly it's a matter of differences of opinion about how 'inconsiderate', 'reckless' and 'dangerous' are defined, but while being a nuisance to others or inconveniencing them is inconsiderate, putting oneself or others at risk of actual harm without thought, or wilfully disregarding caution, is reckless and probably dangerous. 

I've nearly been mown over by morons on two wheels quite a few times at traffic lights. If a cyclist hits me at speed and I consequently smash my head into the pavement, that could easily be life-threatening, life-changing or fatal. Of course it's reckless.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

10 what now?

LOL. Oh, you're serious aren't you. Ok, would you let someone fire a melon at your face at 30 mph? I mean a nice tasty melon only weights what, 3 or 4 kilos and there's no skull in it or nasty sharp bits. Harmless, right?

That much is clear.

Is new law needed? Dunno. I can't really see the harm in sensibly and proportionately tidying up law so we're not applying Victorian relics to the modern world.

jk

I ran into someone at 15 mph and broke their arm. Someone can do the maths on the kinetic energy of 115kg. Should I be prosecuted?

My defence was that I had the ball and he was going in for the tackle.

If she was just being absent minded it would have been careless. If she deliberately walked in front of you it would have been reckless. So either death by careless walking or death by reckless walking.

If I overtake on a blind bend on a very, very quiet road so that the risk of having a head on collision is extremely low, should I not be charged with reckless driving if I get unlucky and kill someone?

In The Netherlands, everyone seems to know and obey rules when on various Highways. Here, cars seems to bully everyone else out of the way, Pedestrians or Cyclists, forcing them to squabble over what is left. But then in shared spaces Pedestrians wander around accepting no responsibility, with dogs either off the lead or those daft ones, and cyclists do not have propers bells, just the tink tink cheapos, if at all that no one can hear. Then there are the people with headphones on.

But the one constant is everyone hates cyclists, even cyclists seem to hate cyclists when not on a back.

Ah feel better for that, thanks for listening

The lack of enforcement over blatantly illegal ebike usage is staggering.  Driving without MOT, tax and insurance and often without a licence in the eyes of the law; in the case of people doing this for delivery firms it’s a blatant piss-take where the firms they work for but aren’t employed for know the exact score.

I think the police can't catch them. The scrotes can out run then every time. 

Better than 2,500kg mass at same speed that’s for sure.

And murder is worse than assault. Assault is still illegal.

Assault as well as murder have intent 

Me at 85kg+10kgish of bike travelling at anywhere between 10-40km/h (around town obv) is going to do some serious damage to a pedestrian, especially somebody elderly and frail, who also are the least likely to be able to get out of the way.

Having seen some appalling/moronic behaviour from fellow cyclists in various clubs, commutes and general riding, why shouldn't somebody on a bike be held responsible for their actions?

back seat passengers are heavy enough to have killed people in the front seats in accidents even at urban traffic speeds

your OP is completely wrong and misguided as there are may ways a moving object can kill or maim people.  A torn aorta for instance.

Damn right a cyclist can be reckless. In my younger fitter and importantly stupider days I used to love the buzz from cycling fast through city traffic, weaving round busses, cars, vans peddling as fast as I could. I was a prick but it was good fun at the time. 

With limited parliamentary time we just have to have some perspective.  More pedestrians are killed by cows than cyclists on average per year. If it were a true safety concern there are better things to focus on like 20 mph limits across all built up areas in England.

I see poor cycling most days. (I am pro cycling by the way) Mostly just dangerous rather than reckless, but occasionally reckless. I've not read up on the new law to be honest but I've never understood why unintentionally causing death with a vehicle should be treated differently in law than death by other means.

I normally ding my bell when I'm zooming along pavements. It gives pedestrians time to dive out of my way

Seems a very public place for that sort of thing, does Mrs Num Num know..?

You’re crazy. You can’t understand why people riding bikes at 20 mph on the pavement might kill elderly pedestrians? What’s wrong with you? You’ve heard of Charlie Alliston, right?

jcm

70 kg cyclist at 20mph = over 2000 foot-pounds of force (Hows that for a mix of units!). That's more than the muzzle energy of a 12 bore shotgun.

I was listening to Radio 5 live this morning and this was debated. Apparently the judge in the fixed wheel case said there was a need for an updated law, so this was brought in. It should be applied very rarely (thank goodness). All the stuff about red lights and ebikes isn't really relevant. It's already covered by existing laws, even though they are widely ignored and not enforced.

It's estimated there are 1 million uninsured drivers on the road. We seem to have given up, as a country, on enforcing traffic laws, whether bike or car. But cars kill a lot more people.

Your posting makes no sense to me however Chris Boardman, who does talk a lot of sense, was on The Today Programme this morning https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001z6p6. 2hours 24 minute and 35 seconds in. IIRC he said Cars involved in circa 30,000 accidents that cause death or serious injury a year, Bicycles 3 accidents a year, and IIRC that includes E Bikes, and lets not forget physical inactivity is involved in circa 100,000  lifestyle deaths.
Yes, like I said everyone loves to hate cyclists.

I'm fairly sure Charlie Alliston was on the road.

What Police?

They've been decimated by the Party of Law and Order.

In reply to hang_about:

See above...

Because, as in the other recent thread, we have become numbed to death by motor vehicle. And the idea that driving is a right, so we rarely give permanent driving bans, even for the most egregious cases of poor driving. As I regularly say: need to drive for your job? Don't drive like a bellend.

That's clearly wrong. There are many more cyclists killed a year than that. How many involved cycling recklessly (or carelessly) will be much less but so will the car number.

Aside from it does happen though. In the same way one punch deaths happen by pure chance as opposed to mythical martial arts techniques. A flip side example is the Grey case. Her acting like an idiot to most cyclists probably wouldnt have been a problem but to an elderly woman who fell off her bike the wrong way it ended up deadly.

If I decide to ride down the local sustrans old railway path flat out on a nice sunny Sunday late morning then chances of me hitting someone would be high and if they were elderly/landed wrong/part of the bike hit just the wrong part of the body then it is possible they would die.

A far lower chance than hitting them with a car but still possible.

The main problem is when you look at the headline cases being talked about in both cases it is rather doubtful that if they had been hit by a car there would have been any punishment or indeed headlines.

In the regents park case that the cyclist wasnt even charged with dangerous cycling doesnt really suggest that they would have been charged with death by dangerous cycling.

You clearly have not listened to the link.

No, I read you post.

Would it be reckless or merely inconsiderate to take pot shots at people with a air rifle? I mean unless you hit a big artery they'll all recover give or take the odd eyeball.

This is one of the madder hills I've seen someone choose to die on but cheers for the laugh.

Jk

One person can kill another person with a single punch.  That’s about 4 kg doing a max of about 25 mph.

A cyclist and a bike are likely to be closer to 100 kg and can achieve faster speeds.

No matter how broken your units are, the later is a lot, lot worse.

Despite the legitimate judicial comment leading to it, when considering all the higher priorities for new legislation, it’s tempting to see this legislation as dog whistle politics, but then that only works when people take up loud, ill informed opinions…. (Hint hint.)

Edit:

You need to put spaces between units or use brackets so we know what the ^-1 applies to. [UKC needs a non breaking space for units, please].  Assuming you mean…

N m s^(-1)

… that is a unit of power.  Not force.

Given that a person on foot could kill someone by shoulder charging into someone the fundamental logic of your argument is wrong. Also if it were impossible it wouldn't happen would it? (so no prosecutions)

I have sometimes wondered whether momentum or energy is a better measure of how dangerous a collision is; if two cars (or bicycles) have the same momentum, would I, in general, rather be hit by the one with greater kinetic energy (or vice versa)?

From what I have read, this proposed legislation will simply make cyclists liable to the same penalties as drivers and motorcyclists, which seems entirely reasonable to me.  Riding carelessly or dangerously is not a new offence.

It makes no difference to the person who's been killed or seriously injured that cyclists cause far fewer accidents than other road users, or that it might have been even worse had they been hit by a car. The suggestion that a cyclist cannot hid a pedestrian hard enough to cause injury or death is clearly nonsense.

Whether this is a good use of parliamentary time is another matter. However there is a sense that the public are more alarmed by reckless cycling because all too often they are sharing the same space. Cars may be far more dangerous, but are usually segregated from pedestrians and may appear as less of a risk.

Agreed, but what I read was that “inconsiderate” riding is also to be made an offence, which I believe does not apply to drivers of motor vehicles.

Seems to be working. Today's Telegraph had a banner across the top of its front page:

50mph in a 20mph zone. Lycra lout cyclists are creating death traps all over Britain.

Just been reading some quality journalism on the Daily Mail website - "The rise of deadly cyclists: Chilling number of pedestrians mowed down by reckless riders". 

Whether or not the law needed updating or not is debatable (as a cyclist I could be charged with manslaughter already if I kill a pedestrian), however its pretty clear that the motivation behind Iain Duncan Smith et all has nothing to do with cycling or safety - its just finding an outlet to garner popularity with an intolerant voting base and cycling is an easy target... 

One of the worrying things is the possible legislation (DoT consultation) that will increase the risks of serious events caused by things called cycles...(an increase in the power of motors etc)(allowing a larger mass  quicker acceleration).

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/does-government-really-know-how-make-e-bikes...

If this came to pass then there would probably be more injuries, feeding the perceived threat posed by cyclists.

I do wonder whether the journalist who wrote that had actually stopped to think - the world record in a velodrome sprint is about 50mph and that's on a special bike.  Quite likely this is someone using a car, moped or illegal electric bike.

While one could argue this law a waste of time, any cyclist genuinely concerned about it really should look at how they cycle.

I suspect as others say it's mostly aimed at people being stupid, e.g. pursuing Strava segments on shared paths in public parks*, and delivery couriers riding dangerously using modified ebikes.

And yes a cyclist hitting an elderly person at 20mph could kill them - easily.  I suspect if a cyclist hit me it would hurt them more than me, but if they hit my 76 year old Mum it would be of significant medical consequence.  (Think when you go from "falling over" to "having a fall").

* I'd love this aspect of Strava to go away - it causes antisocial use of all manner of facilities not suitable for it, from busy roads to narrow bridleways.

Yes, as a cyclist my reaction was a big fat so-what. I can already be charged with manslaughter, and data shows that in the last year of available data, 2022, Britain's combined 7.4 million cyclists killed zero pedestrians. It is just pointless though, in 5 years time, I can bet there is a reasonable chance that there wont have been a single conviction under this new law... 

As a parent I know which road users I am more fearful of in relation to the safety of my children as they walk about the village, and it ain't bicycles.

Yes but a comet would be worse.

Good point, someone should pass a law against the scurge of extraterrestrial objects on road users. 

It does apply, just a different wording.

 Under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is an offence to drive without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration ...

Surely he meant three fatal accidents caused by cyclists

Bloody hell! Illegal aliens on bicycles. I can sense the next Daily Mail campaign winding up as we speak.

In practice the authorities seem to have found it quite difficult to prosecute cyclists who kill someone, and the penalties don't seem adequate.

Pedestrians have been killed in other years.

No one is disagreeing that cars kill more people, including cyclists, or that serious accidents caused by cyclists are uncommon. However on the rare occasions when a cyclist kills or seriously injures someone, why shouldn't they be liable to the same penalties?

For that matter, why shouldn't cyclists be subject to speed limits? The argument that they don't know their speed no longer applies. Anyone who can ride fast enough to risk breaking the speed limit (which rules me out) can very easily equip themselves with a computer or phone mount to show their speed.

They're certainly trying to peddle something.

No they shouldn't because they are people like all other people, but  they made a decision that unfortuante day to ride a more responsible form of transport. One that is > 150,000 times less likely to kill someone. One that doesn't emit particulates that kill the respiratorial challenged, and one that reduces the load on the NHS. So yes maybe on the day that a great misfortune happened some will say that all cyclists are irresponsible, and maybe the pedestrian wasn't paying very much attention when they walked out into the road, and noting that there is no law penalising pedestrians for reckless walking, and just maybe the Police person and the Judge might well want to use the new law just because laws are there to be used ... and all because the government of the day is about to loose and so need to whip up a culture war.

and thereby you put a £100 barrier (for the purchase and installation of a cycle computer) to adoption of cycling. And no your GNSS enabled phone does not tell you your speed. Its measuring your average speed.

I dont think you will find many cyclists who disagree, hence my comment of "so-what"? But is a law that almost will almost never be invoked a useful use of government resources? Perhaps consider why it has been covered by a 200 year old law, because its not a problem that is especially in need of a fix... Do we need laws for runners as well in case they decide to do a sprint? 

Again is this a problem that needs fixing? I am a keen active cyclist and I only wish I could ride at 30mph... How much public resource do you think should be spent to ensure people cannot do something it is very difficult for them to achieve anyway? Is it worthwhile routing public finance away from schools and hospitals to enforce this?

I agree that this legislation is part of the culture wars and not good use of parliamentary time, but the idea that a cyclist who kills with the same culpability as a driver should not face equivalent consequences is totally daft. 

you need to provide some evidence for that. "Involving cyclists" does not in any way imply that the cyclists caused the incident, except in your prejudiced mind?

So because cycling is a social good reckless cyclists who cause serious harm or death should just get a pass. That is seriously your argument?

If there is potentially a case to answer, surely it's right that the Police and CPS take it forward unless you really do believe you should just be allowed to kill people with impunity so long as you were using a bike.

Incidentally, I'm enjoying the idea of some judge shouting at the local bobby to just go nick someone on a bike so they can play with their new law

You can get a bike speedo for <£5 and of course there is the alternative approach of just riding sensibly.

What on earth do you think any 'speedometer' is displaying? 

jk

You need to read the comments I replied to and the comment before that. (which wasn't mine)

The original comment was "> cars involved in circa 30,000 accidents that cause death or serious injury a year, Bicycles 3 accidents a year

Apologies, but actually the correction you made is wrong. In the statistics the three are not 'caused' but 'involving' and there is a big gap between involving and caused. Chris Boardman made that very clear. 

Quite.
It is worth listening to the link, to avoid Chinese whispers  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001z6p6 . 2hours 24 minute and 35 seconds in

3 or less accidents a year in which cyclists cause a death, which is less than the chances of being killed by Cows or Lightening.

5 people a day are killed by cars, 1700 a year and 30,000 seriously injured. I can imagine there are wars that kill and injure less people.

I don’t actually disagree with your point here but I feel facts are important: My Cat Eye Speedometer cost me £17. I have both that and a phone mount. My phone’s GPS based speedometer extremely rarely disagrees with the wheel-based speedometer, depending on the app the average can just be over the past 2-3 samples, which is basically your speed at that point.

Short distance and the average speed is 10k faster than the max. So something funky going on with either Stravas matching or a dodgy gps signal.

So what? He was an example of how it's possible to kill people by reckless riding of a bicycle, something the OP seems to be in denial about.

jcm

Then in that case I completely change tack because if you are telling me that in a year there were three accidents involving cyclists that led to death or serious injury; I don't believe you (a Google says appx 100 each year die) so, given the way the sentence was written and the subject of the thread I can't see how Godwin could have meant anything else but MG would have been correct either way.

However I see Godwin has confirmed I was correct. As a cyclist who has been injured myself I found your assumption of my 'prejudice' mildly offensive.

Your language is interesting "cyclists who kill" vs "cars kill more people".  Why not drivers or bicycles?

Cyclists can and are prosecuted. The problem is most of these cases it is not immediately obvious the cyclist is to blame. To take the recent regents park case the pedestrian stepped out in front of them. They could have still be charged with careless or dangerous cycling but in the same way a driver would be unlikely to be charged they werent.

I am not sure any of the cases would have come anywhere near the requirements for "death by dangerous". Alliston for example whilst a moron was still a case of the pedestrian stepping out in front. Chances of a car driver being done for death by dangerous driving would be about zero in the same case.

The Guardian copied the heil and IDS and sent someone with a speed measurer to Regents park. They did find cyclists speeding but also, something the heil managed to miss, pretty much all motor vehicles doing so as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/may/17/spinning-out-of-contro...

I’d rather be hit by a 50kg washing machine going at 1ms^-1 than a 0.1kg bullet going at 500ms^-1, both have the same momentum. The bullet has 500x more energy. I think energy is more important.

I remember being confused by this point during A levels. I think 30 years later I still don't really understand.

Do we not have to consider objects impacting the same area (you may well still be right)?

We could do a test.  Put your washing machine on a pair of roller skates, get someone to shove it across the kitchen at 1m/s with a bullet shaped pointy thing sticking out and see what happens when it hits you.

What if it was on a treadmill?

It all gets too complicated...energy and momentum aren't linearly related (energy is the square of the velocity). Then the contact area, which you alude to (I'd been thinking more about rods vs cubes rather than pears) and the time curve of energy dissipation....and then is it surface contact or penetrative.

On reflection, simplest to avoid being hit by things. Given the contribution of velocity lower energy things might be easier to avoid.

The lethality mechanism differ for grossly different speeds, making a simpler “faster is worse” ruling hard to justify, but any given mechanism tends to favour the more energetic object.

The other consequence of less energy & less speed for the same momentum is how possible it is for a person to remove themselves from the danger.  It’s easier to dodge your killer washing machine than a speeding bullet…

Actually it was done on a smart turbo in TACX.  It’s virtual but the guy hasn’t flagged it as virtual in Strava.   Telegraph readers wetting themselves over a guy in Spain pretending to ride in London.

Getting knocked off my bike by a cow while being chased by a bullet shaped washing machine is the stuff of nightmares.

As the owner of six bikes and also a pedestrian my initial answer is "Is the Pope a catholic" but I suspect it's not a serious post.

Lots of stuff on here about Death.  Not much about agonising breakage of a fragile limb recovering from a previous break;  not much about elderly people and parents apprehensive about leaving the house.  Not much empathy.  Tried waiting at a bus stop in Hackney recently?

ee my other comment;  have you waited at a bus stop in Hackney recently?  Or anywhere?

Is it not illegal to own pedestrians?

This is pretty much what I was thinking. Consider identically shaped bullets of different masses and velocities; presumably damage can be measured in how far they penetrate the body (could we reasonably assume constant resistive force?).

Then separately consider big flat objects like getting hit by a bus(or washing machine); presumably damage could be measured by the maximum force on the body).

The two situations might have different conclusions. Obviously plenty of intermediates.

I suppose a quantity other than momentum or energy might be a better indicator than either.

No, and I'm not a cyclist either. I think that cyclists should be held properly to account if they ride dangerously, just like car drivers. However, given that the war on cyclists has been adopted by the Telegraph and other right wing media as one of their hysterical and irrationally disproportionate culture war pet campaigns, it is pretty obvious that this legislation is driven by divisive politics rather than public safety concerns.

Surely the same energy but concentrated in a smaller area.

Will no one legislate against these killer washing machines????  think of the children!!!

I assume you are referring to the new 'bus islands'? as someone how has been forced to jump off my bike on to the pavement by mental bus drivers cutting across me they seem pretty sensible solution to a serious road safety problem.

I was so shocked by the last incident where the bus driver had clearly seen me as he overtook and pulled back to get to a stop whilst I was still alongside I stopped asked to ask the driver what he was thinking (after collecting my self from the gutter)  he replied cyclists could just get the he'll out of his way, he was in a bus and would do what he wanted. Sumed the experience  of cycling on British roads rather concisely.

They don't look that great!

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/floating-bus-stops-cyclists-petition...

I hope you reported him. I've no idea if true for all places but I knew someone who worked at a bus depot and he said that any serious incident involving a bus would lead to the suspension of the driver.

I'm a cyclist and it makes complete sense. A cyclist riding recklessly fast through an area crowded with pedestrians is an idiot and a danger to others. I see no problem with them being held to account. They would only be convicted if there was sufficient evidence to prove they cycled recklessly. 

I'd agree only if the convictions rates & punishments are proportionate to the risk different modes of transport the pose to others.

Hence a reckless cyclist who kills somebody gets the same punishment as an ordinarily imperfect driver who kills somebody. Preferably a serious punishment for both.

Although that is both political suicide and possibly unfair to a reckless cyclist who is probably safer for others than an ordinarily imperfect driver.

They're awful! (and I said as much to the council when they were 'consulting' about them a while back. For some reason they didn't listen). They seem to be a nod to cycling infrastructure, but making a worse problem (forcing people dashing for a bus to step in front of cyclists) than the one they're intending to solve.

For the most part I've found bus drivers getting better over the years at not overtaking and then pulling in to a stop; I assumed TFL felt it had to have words as cycling became more mainstream.

The figures Chris Boardman was using are only incidents where death or serious injury was caused to a pedestrian. Injuries to cyclists from cars aren't included

Whose priority is it at the crossing?

Kinetic energy is (1/2)mv^2

the killer washing machine is (1/2)x50x1^2=25J

the bullet is (1/2)x0.1x500^2=12500J

so, as you can see, not the same energy.

If you changed the shape of the 0.1kg mass so it was big and flat (rather than bullet shaped), I still wouldn’t fancy having it coming towards me at 500m/s. I’d imagine there would be an orb of searing hot plasma ahead of it which would finish me off before the sheet hit me.

I’m finding this much more fun than arguing if bikes can be dangerous by the way.

It's a fairly regular occurance that drivers who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off scott-free or with very little penalty. An example that sticks in my head is a chap who killed four cyclists including a 14 year old boy after skidding on bald tyres. He got a small fine. A year or two in prison seems pretty common in other examples (from memory, Google will turn up a few).

I've no problem at all with the new law, but it would be nice if laws for drivers were applied/tightened in a similar manner to protect more vulnerable road users.

My next door neighbour was out with his cycling club, dropping back from the front of the peleton, and was hit by a deer suddenly running into the road. Broke both arms, shoulder, ribs, and wrote off the bike.

As most cyclists know, coming off your bike is no fun, however it happens.

Report him.

I did with a driver who did something similar to me some years ago. Bus company (Reading buses) took the complaint seriously.

"The ‘floating’ stops - known officially as bus stop bypasses - feature a cycle lane that runs between the bus stop and the pavement."

That seems guaranteed to bring cyclists into conflict with cyclists.

Well that would at least make a change from cyclists being in conflict with everyone else.

Hah! Interrupted mid-edit...

But then again;

In practice the authorities seem to have found it quite difficult to prosecute car drivers who kill someone, and the penalties don't seem adequate.

And yet the laws have been there for years - isn't it about time they locked up these persons*, and for a more suitable period.

*- I would prefer another word, but don't wish to use foul language

Clearly there needs to be a law to punish reckless deer.  Also what was its mass, velocity and kinetic energy? And was it pushing a washing machine with a spike on it?

I can't help but feel like you've entirely missed the point Mutt.

Caveat in advance:  I do agree, as a cyclist, that there feels like a bit of a UK blow back on cyclists at the moment.  However I don't agree that that has been created from nowhere by rabid cyclist hating right wing cabal (as appealing as that might be) ... but instead by a determined small minority of cyclists who stubbornly refuse to obey the rules of the road.  Every time a cyclist runs a red light, no matter how safe that situation might be to so, we need to accept that we're goading the government/police to do something about it.  For the avoidance of doubt .. they clearly have their cross hairs set next on eScooters .. and for good reason IMO.

To the point ... in your original post change the word "cyclists" to any other moving object on the roads - example:  

• "Now it seems that eScooter [riders] can be jailed for 14 years for causing death by reckless riding."
• "Now it seems that car [drivers] can be jailed for 14 years for causing death by reckless driving."
• "Now it seems that motorcyclists can be jailed for 14 years for causing death by reckless driving."
• "Now it seems that HGV [drivers] can be jailed for 14 years for causing death by reckless driving."

The emphasis is not on the "road user" ... the emphasis on the "death by recklessness".  

Why on earth are you arguing that in this situation a cyclist should be jailed for only 2x years but a car driver should be jailed for 14?  The fact that you caused death by reckless cycling vs death by reckless driving of a car is completely irrelevant ... the point is that your recklessness caused a death and for that the punishment should be agnostic of the device you happened to be driving at the time.

As many have already rightly said ... the bar for reckless behavior is high (Fixed gear is irrelevant IMO .. but riding without breaks feels reasonable IMO) and the number of cases with cyclists will undoubtedly be exceptionally low.  But if we approach this from the perspective of a family who lost a loved one as a result of reckless behavior ... it is only reasonable that they might expect that the perpetrator to be treated equally in the eyes of the law irrespective of what they happened to be driving/riding when they killed their family member.

Its the outcome that matters.  Equal accountability for death by recklessness on the roads is not an attack on cyclists .. and you are not helping the case for Britain's cyclists by calling foul - you make it look like you want 1x rule for cyclists and 1x rule for everyone else.

Happy riding.

Its ironic that the Telegraph, apparently now the saviour to pedestrians everywhere for their campaign against killer cyclists has repeatedly undermined and attacked the default Wales 20mph limit in residential areas, a measure that really will save a lot of lives each year...

Judging by the driving I saw yesterday - in Wales - the 20mph limit is simply sending car drivers to sleep.

And the only speeding I saw was by locals - at least judging by the fact that they came out of residential side roads in front of me and then went off at virtually twice the speed the rest of us were doing.

As an aside, my mpg went down in the 20 limits compared to in 30's - which implies more emissions being emitted than before. How about that for looking after the health of Wales.

I’d imagine that in any area the majority of speeding offences are committed by locals, simply because locals are the biggest group using the roads in any given area.

I don’t really understand your point. Some locals speed so increase the speed limits?

I was about to say that given your posting history I get the sense you just don’t like the Welsh. But given your posting history I get the sense that you don’t really like anyone. 

Although in the video from my link above, is there an exact equivalence with the cyclist who knocked the person over and a driver doing the same at a zebra crossing? Or the youth doing a wheelie equally reckless as one say drifting in a car, and therefore requiring the same sentence?

Everytime a motorist speeds they are goading the government/police to do something about it. Which, in the eyes of the rightwing press, is to lessen the laws.

As pointed out by Richard Horn the hard right press are simultaneously shouting about 20mph limits. They also got all outraged about the highway code rule clarifications.

The obvious one there being they are illegal outside of the trial schemes. So no need for any new laws.

Lets be realistic here. If she had stepped in front of a car with faulty brakes it wouldnt have made the headlines and at most the driver might have got a fine.  Robert Harris killed four cyclists and got a mere £180 fine for his unroadworthy car. Not a mention of careless or reckless driving.

Whether there has been recklessness is for the court to decide based on the evidence in the individual case. However where recklessness is proved and results in injury or death the penalty should be the same irrespective of the form of transport.  

Sadly, that's probably true. A cyclist causing a death is sufficiently unusual to be newsworthy.

That would depend on whether they had been driving dangerously.

That accident was caused by black ice.It's easy to be caught out by black ice even when driving carefully. Presumably there was insufficient evidence of him driving carelessly or dangerously for him to be prosecuted for that. The police evidence was that the worn tyres didn't contribute to the accident, as even tyres in good condition are no good on ice.  The fine (which I agree sounds very low) was for the unroadworthy vehicle, not for the deaths.

Seriously! What make you think the getting into a one tonne car and driving on a day where black ice is prevalent is in any way responsible? This kind of normalizing of psychotically irresponsible behavior is exactly the problem. Society is so inured to the suffering cause but cars that it refuses to punish drivers. And yes I suppose some of the apologists for driver idiocy will point ot that the cyclists were out in the same conditions but let's just examine that. If they slid on the black ice how many people would have been killed?. And for me at least that is why cyclists should never be called 'reckless'. The term has been entirely debased by societies tolerance of 1700 deaths a year caused by drivers doing perfectly normalized things that ' just happen ' to kill someone. 

There were a large number of vehicles going THROUGH the built up areas, rather than stopping - hence "non-local" (though maybe from 5 or 10 miles away) - and only a smattering of vehicles emerging from small side roads.

You are (deliberately ?) misinterpreting me - I am saying that it's the LOCALS who are speeding, and hence endangering THEIR neighbours, not outsiders.

Complete b0110ck5. I spent all day Saturday proudly wearing my Welsh National kit. I just don't like (two-faced) people who seem to live on the principle of "do as I say, not as I do", or who keep blaming outsiders when their fellow locals (and they themselves ?) are far worse.

If you look at the coroners report you will see a rather different take especially around the failure to prosecute.  He admitted driving too fast for the conditions since it was clear there was a real risk of black ice.

So on the one hand we have four cyclists killed by someone driving carelessly for the conditions in a defective vehicle who just got £180 fine.

Then on the other we have a cyclist on a defective bike who didnt take sufficient measures to avoid a pedestrian who stepped out without looking. Who got jail.

Remind me why exactly we need stronger laws to deal with the cyclist?

It will be interesting to see what “reckless on a bike” is determined to be by the courts.

for example car doing 30 mph in a 30 mph zone runs into some who steps out onto the road = not reckless? Substitute that for a cyclist doing 30 mph and those interpreting the law, who are more likely to be car drivers, may take a different view

I cycle to work and at weekends and I don’t object to the law per se. I more worry about its interpretation and a double standard being created.

This will sit alongside the issue that the current interpretation of existing laws fail to take into account the inherently greater risk to other road users from cars and as others have pointed the unquestioning acceptance of “collateral damage” from them 

A much wider debate is needed from a “how could we make roads safer for everyone” rather than trying to pitch groups against each other…..but that is fantasy land given current state of politics and media in the UK.

Is you are in your car driving when there is black ice around then it is arguable that you are not being careful by default. It seems too often the term "accident" is used when what actually has happened is a predictable consequence of bad decision making. 

And, unfortunately, that novelty is often associated with a more stringent punishment than that for motor offences. As mentioned above, we have become inured to deaths due to motor vehicles.

Are you saying cycling and driving should stop if the temperature is less than 3C (when ice may form)?

No, I quite honestly have no idea what bearing you are saying this has on whether the speed limit should be 20 or not.

I’m certainly not trying to misinterpret you. I literally wrote that I don’t understand what you are trying to say and thought it was clear that I was taking a guess and asking you to clarify.

Sorry, still not following. The post you replied to said nothing about locals vs outsiders.

And “far worse”? Any evidence (bar your guess at where people you saw on the road come from, and the questionable assumption that the speeders you saw are advocates for lower speed limits) that speeding is significantly more prevalent in Wales than England? Having lived in both countries I haven’t found Wales to be any worse. Can find clear numbers but the top 5 areas for speeding offences seem to consistently be in England in recent years.

That'll certainly make winter climbing more of an endeavour.

So everyone should stay home when the temperature drops to near freezing? No one should drive, or take a bus, or cycle, because of the risk of black ice? No one should go out on foot either, because of the risk of falling and overwhelming the NHS.? Mind you, most accidents happen in the home, so that's not safe either.

That would depend on how many people they hit, and how hard.  People hit by cyclists can die.

We are talking about situations where someone's dangerous behaviour has resulted in death or serious injury to someone else. Never mind that statistically cyclists are less likely to injure someone than car drivers - on this occasion a cyclist has. How can you possibly excuse that behaviour just because they were on a bike rather than in a car? The victim is just as dead as if they had been hit by a car.

What is deemed to be reckless or dangerous, and what is the appropriate penalty, is determined by the courts based on the facts in each case, and each case is different.

They only need to hang around any take away/ food delivery place where the bikes congregate.

I'm all for punishing dangerous behaviour that resulted in death or serious injury to someone else.

Dangerous behavior resulting in death is often fairly ordinary driving.

The punishment for a cyclist causing a death should be about the same.

Preferably something more than a £180 fine.

Or the pedestrianised town centre. But there are no officers on patrol these days; no resources available due to cuts..

Surely if you kill someone due to the recklessness of your actions then what you were driving/riding is irrelevant? I think the penalties for causing death or injury by reckless driving are not harsh enough and all to often not applied to the maximum level permitted but that's another matter.

its not hard (or particularly scary) to be going that fast on a road bike on a nice straightish downhill section of road.

A somewhat provocative response is to suggest the government therefore change the rules of the road. Granted, it wouldn't be 'fair', but then there's various precedents that could be used to inform this; bikes already not equated to cars in all situations (not allowed on motorways, for eg); right-turn at red lights permitted in a number of US states without societal collapse.
Does the Daily Mail wring hands in consternation of pedestrians only crossing the road on the green man? Or pressing the pelican button and then just wandering over, leaving a queue of traffic waiting at an empty crossing (a knee-capping offence when I become High Emperor)?

It might come as a surprise to car drivers but the space they take on the road  is the principle reason for most red lights. And another surprise for them is that from a cyclists point of view a road junction is the most dangerous place they can stop at. This has been acknowledged by the long standing practice of putting advanced boxes for bicycles so that they can escape the danger area before the needy drivers push past them. 

I know I'm going to get shouted down by all you drivers and some cyclists but actually I sometimes put my own safety ahead of drivers happiness and get off down the road before the lights turn green but only when it's safe for all to do that. 

I rationalize that by the time the cars have caught up they will have spread out and be able to give me space. 

Generally I find that drivers are very considerate when they know I'm there. Driving around in their little boxes even the best drivers would miss me at a busy junction and I'm not about to hang around and let myself get knocked over by a lorry  again. It hurt a lot last time. 

Judge me if you like but do ask yourself first if you actually have any experience of cycling around a busy city? Staying safe is exhausting.

It really depends on the definition of "recklessness of your actions" - does it include the choice of vehicle or not?

If it includes the choice of vehicle then millions of ordinary drivers (who can pretty easily kill and often do) are more dangerous and more reckless with the safety of others than even very bad cyclists.

If it doesn't include choice of vehicle then the absolute worst of cyclists are subject to more severe punishments than people (eg average motorists) who have chosen a vehicle in which it is both much more likely to kill and much more sociable acceptable to kill with.

Personally I think the punishment for death due to cycling should be the same as the punishment for death due to driving. The former would almost certainly be reckless cycling, the latter would usually be a fairly routine driving mistake.

I used to do 40mph (had a speedo fitted) down the back of the Woodhead Pass on my beat up old mountain bike when I was a student!  Very easy to do that downhill on a proper road bike.

(20 year old me had bigger proverbial balls than 44 year old me, no way I'd do it now!)

I think you missed the joke in the post. Read what they wrote.

Where I live (nottingham) they have started to install separate lights for bikes at some nasty junctions so you can safely get going before cars, which i thought was a great solution.

Is fifty years enough experience to comment, do you think?

Yes, in Nottingham, quite a lot, and the way I find staying safe for me is to act exactly like a car, positioning myself like a car at roundabouts (no going around on the outside to turn right, regardless of what suggestions the Highway Code might have, that’s a recipe to get run over), and generally letting people pass me as soon as possible.

What I do not do, is rationalise going past red lights like you just did. One issue with that is that it antagonises other road users, and I always find my time on the road much less stressful if I avoid antagonising people, whether on a bike or in a car.

Yeah, I was going down Snake Pass on my road bike a couple of years ago, looked down and was doing 57MPH, which was a bit of a shock considering all there was between me and the road was Lycra and a helmet, it got me to slow down pretty damn quick.

I wouldn't, but there are plenty of countries where you have to change your tyres to safer ones when there is a risk of ice or snow. I've had all season tyres on my car for years now - yes they're more expensive than cheap summer tyres but you wonder why they couldn't just make them the expected minimum. Prices would presumably go down if all cars in a market the size of the UK had to have them by default.

Having driven in Finland for over a decade, you just get used to the laws on winter tyres being the norm - and just a cost of what society has come to as the appropriate level of risk mitigation.  

Fair point. I use them in Scotland. I doubt they do much on out and out ice though, rather than snow etc.

I'm sure you're right, although it incredibly rare you drive on pure ice - I have driven on ice roads (across the lake where there is ferry in summer) in eastern Finland which is kind of cool but even there the passing of other traffic with studded tires roughen the surface of ice on the roadway, and I'm sure friction tyres would get some grip on that. We had a few days down here two winters ago where light snow got packed down and became icy in a way I've not seen in the UK, far more reminiscent of southern Finnish roads in winter. People were having lots and lots of trouble particularly on the country lanes I use to get to work, but all season tyres worked great! I got to feel really smug for those two or three day!