death by dangerous cycling

[W W Biffta]

i think the dwdca charge is a bit of a joke anyway. it basiaclly says 'yeah cars kill ppl what are you gonna do *shrug*' ie getting in a car is so normal that it isnt reasonable to have ppl make an effort to pay attention when they do it. lame.

again with ref to the specific case, my understanding is that his going onto the pavement was the attempt at avoidance, and the girl moved back infront of him. but there is so much conflicting info its hard to know. whatever, he was in the wrong, killed someone, seems open and shut to me, but he had a good lawyer

 

[Neil]

i think the dwdca charge is a bit of a joke anyway. it basiaclly says 'yeah cars kill ppl what are you gonna do *shrug*' ie getting in a car is so normal that it isnt reasonable to have ppl make an effort to pay attention when they do it. lame.

The way I've always understood it is like this - accepting your point that cars and vehicles travelling at speed present inherent risks to other road users - drivers sometimes make mistakes, and can do so with no overt intent.

From what I understand, DWDCA can be applied to a wide range of driving indiscretions that police decide to pursue.

Clearly where the end result of the accident (and yes, I know, the police don't like that term any more) has severe consequences (ie death(s), serious injury...) then the ante gets upped in terms of sanctions or punishment.

Now where the behaviour of a driver goes beyond passive carelessness, but deliberate omission (where that can be proven) then the police can pursue charges like dangerous driving or death by dangerous driving.

again with ref to the specific case, my understanding is that his going onto the pavement was the attempt at avoidance, and the girl moved back infront of him. but there is so much conflicting info its hard to know. whatever, he was in the wrong, killed someone, seems open and shut to me, but he had a good lawyer

I guess how credible that would sound, would depend on believable testimony on what he shouted, and how he appeared to behave.

Not slowing down for such a hazard, though, where it was an easy option, doesn't look great - so if that's what happened, could be quite damning.

 

[W W Biffta]

ok so its like the diff between not making enough effort to avoid an existing problem, as opposed to not paying any attention and causing a problem?

in this case hes seen the crowd, shouted his piece and then carried on intead of stopping, which would be akin to the dwdca charge, rather than riding along weaving in and out of pedestrians while pulling a wheelie, which would be what? still dwdca i think

my point would be if it was an unusal piece of lethal equipment it would be manslaughter for killing someone, but cos its a car (everybody needs a car) and so massivly common they have a special offence.
a bike is not a lethal piece of equipment, this guy coulda done as much damage if he was running. no need to get the bike involved imo except that bikes shouldnt be on the pavement. that was the reckless cycling bit he was convicted of, and the max is a 2k fine. maybe they should look at that first, its waht most of the commentors on yahoo seem to think the mp is suggesting anyway.

 

[Drencrom]

i dont want to be offensive but if you really think that you are a fool.

Well I'm assuming her 'agenda' is the same as most politicians; power through appealing to the people that will vote them in. The public gets what the public wants.

 

[The Ken]

I don't have an issue with this law being created other than the cost involved to taxpayers. The old one mentioned could have been used in this case, It is outdated in terminology but still relevant.

Personally if he had time to shout what he is alleged to of said, he had time to brake.

 

[Neil]

ok so its like the diff between not making enough effort to avoid an existing problem, as opposed to not paying any attention and causing a problem?

Well my take is deliberately taking a risk or deliberately not mitigating your driving, as opposed to being a bit careless.

in this case hes seen the crowd, shouted his piece and then carried on intead of stopping

Stopping wasn't the only action, though - slowing down, or taking evasive action was possible - and even if not totally preventing a collision, may have at least mitigated the result, and shown willing.

a bike is not a lethal piece of equipment, this guy coulda done as much damage if he was running.

Not sure I agree with that.

I'd say it's easier to go faster on a bike than running, and bits of metal make it more of a risk than just bumping into people.

In this example, may not be much of a distinction if the injury occurred by head contact with the pavement - but the speed and ability to avoid may well be.

no need to get the bike involved imo except that bikes shouldnt be on the pavement. that was the reckless cycling bit he was convicted of, and the max is a 2k fine. maybe they should look at that first, its waht most of the commentors on yahoo seem to think the mp is suggesting anyway.

Well the law is what it is at the moment, and there are offences that apply to cycling, and offences that apply to driving.

 

[Drencrom]

a bike is not a lethal piece of equipment, this guy coulda done as much damage if he was running.

A hammer, or a gun for that matter, is not a lethal weapon until used as one. It's the application that is key here.

A cyclist will do more damage due to momentum than a runner, or any pedestrian, on average. Even an unfit person can ride faster than most fit people can walk. Add the points of contact of a bicycle, along with the height change in centre of gravity (combined mass is therefore higher) and you have a much more dangerous proposition.

I'll take being hit from behind by the runner than the cyclist on my walk home tonight thanks!

 

[W W Biffta]

I don't have an issue with this law being created other than the cost involved to taxpayers

at teh risk of labouring the point, be very clear, this law makes your bike a lethal intrument. right now a bike doesnt cause death or injury, the rider does (or doesnt depending how good your lawyer is)
when you are culpable for being in control of a lethal instrument when you go on a sunday ride. you will need a licence and indemnity insurance as a matter of course. next bikes are only allowed on the road or 'pay to ride' trails, and the great liberator of the people will no longer be free.
is a bike a lethal instument? i dont think so, if i did i wouldnt get on one anymore than i get in a car.

 

[W W Biffta]

A hammer, or a gun for that matter, is not a lethal weapon until used as one. It's the application that is key here.

thats exactly the point, there is no law about hammers, but here is about guns and more comparably, knives
if this goes through there will be a law about your bike too. you will be resonsible for something that is more dangerous that it used to be when nothing has actually changed.

A cyclist will do more damage due to momentum than a runner, or any pedestrian, on average.

only if hes going faster. my point was the bicycle is not really the relevent object, its the rider and the speed. going fast is A definition of wreckless cycling i guess.
as for the pointy bits, the solution to that will be the kind of crap you have to go through to get a home brew moped passed by the dvla. its basically impossible, you end up with a motorbike. imagine that every time you do a build. id suggest most people would just register thier bikes as off the road.

 

[Neil]

A hammer, or a gun for that matter, is not a lethal weapon until used as one. It's the application that is key here.

thats exactly the point, there is no law about hammers, but here is about guns and more comparably, knives

Not sure there's laws explicitly about chainsaws - don't call me Ash - but then guns do tend to be the weapon of choice for those serious about it...

if this goes through there will be a law about your bike too. you will be resonsible for something that is more dangerous that it used to be when nothing has actually changed.

There's already laws about bikes.