Cyclists who kill

[nunumumi]

What is so laugh my arse off funny about that?

I just imagined the ways in which a cyclist could potentially 'kill' a pedestrian, especially in hindsight of that sensationalist article. Like he has to carefully pick his victim. Best would be an older lady with brittle bones. Then race up to her from behind, do a bunny hop, twist the bike in mid-air, and decapitate her with his spinning rear wheel like a buzz saw...

 

[Imlach]

I just imagined the ways in which a cyclist could potentially 'kill' a pedestrian, especially in hindsight of that sensationalist article. Like he has to carefully pick his victim. Best would be an older lady with brittle bones. Then race up to her from behind, do a bunny hop, twist the bike in mid-air, and decapitate her with his spinning rear wheel like a buzz saw...

Eh... A proper full speed collision with a bike can definitely lead to a fatal outcome for a pedestrian - even for those that aren't 'old and brittle'

That's not to say we should buy into this fearmongering, it's nonsensical of course, it makes a good headline because it's such a rare situation and therefor it's perfect bait for people with a lot of time and little brain. 'ARE ROADS ARE LITTERED WITH THE SORTS, BIKILLERS GOING RAMPANT!'

Doesn't mean we should have a laugh at the idea of someone losing their life, it's tragic.

 

[Woz]

Puzzled by this thread. Even in NL a cyclist is vulnerable in traffic, much like pedestrians. In the UK it seems cyclists are outlaw in traffic ánd in the news. Why is that? I don't really understand. Also I never heard of a cyclist killing someone in traffic overhere. Roadies can be aggressive but kill? Don't take this in any way as a negative. I am sympathetic. We don't pay road tax here and no one has ever held it against me. Seems malicious and stupid..

@grantoury

Because the UK Highway Code is made in a utter dream world with some of the most stupid out of date ideals.

Other countries adopted a road hierarchy backed up with a default legal position years and years ago as a corner stone. It's pretty much on the lines that the more damage you can potentially inflict on a more vulnerable road user, the more you will be in the wrong.

 

[al-onestare]

@grantoury

Because the UK Highway Code is made in a utter dream world with some of the most stupid out of date ideals.

Other countries adopted a road hierarchy backed up with a default legal position years and years ago as a corner stone. It's pretty much on the lines that the more damage you can potentially inflict on a more vulnerable road user, the more you will be in the wrong.

Exactly, if only some folks did a little research before spouting off opinion, they'd quickly learn that the current laws are ancient and unbalanced. It doesn't matter how often an event takes place, it's how it's dealt with legally and to have a level of consistency where it makes sense. In this specific scenario, the changes outlined are needed.

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

There is nothing wrong with punishing cyclists who take a life through either recklessness or negligence.

What is wrong is "getting tough", as the minister said, on cyclists while going so easy on other killers its almost laughable.

Its being done for blatantly political ends, nothing more. If they really cared about road death justice they wouldn't let motorists get away with insulting excuses."the sun was in my eyes" which really means "I was driving blindly and negligently", and "I didn't see them" instead of "I wasn't paying attention". Yet these sort of insulting excuses are regularly swallowed by a court as an excuse for not jailing someone. When is this sort of injustice going to be addressed?

Indeed, positive victim blaming still often occurs when a cyclist is killed. It was a busy road, no fluorescent, no helmet, etc, and its almost never questioned. Try blaming any other type of victim and there would be an outcry.

The government claims to be bug on levelling up. Well, lets see some equity so numerically car more important killers are treated equally firmly.

 

[mk one]

Causing death by whatever means is an offence, the laws for cycling are already in place, and all other instances, just down to interpretation, which is the same for any law really.

 

[Imlach]

@grantoury

Because the UK Highway Code is made in a utter dream world with some of the most stupid out of date ideals.

Other countries adopted a road hierarchy backed up with a default legal position years and years ago as a corner stone. It's pretty much on the lines that the more damage you can potentially inflict on a more vulnerable road user, the more you will be in the wrong.

I say shoot the cyclists to prevent more deaths, before they get into an accident.

 

[FluffyChicken]

I say shoot the cyclists to prevent more deaths, before they get into an accident.

Why use a gun, just use the car. An almost legal means of killing somebody.

 

[Imlach]

Why use a gun, just use the car. An almost legal means of killing somebody.

Fair point

 

[Woz]

Why use a gun, just use the car. An almost legal means of killing somebody.

When I passed my UK driving test, the examiner said "Well done, you have earned your license to kill."

I am not joking or making this up. The license issued in 1990, and at that time the theory test was a 10 min Q&A with the examiner sitting in the passenger seat. Using a James Bond tag line and saying it so seriously as made it stick in my mind (for the better obviously).