So gov't sent to introduce legislation for causing death or injury by dangerous cycling.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/may/15/uk-to-introduce-new-offence-of-causing-death-or-injury-by-dangerous-cyclingThis seems another example of introducing a specific law for something that is already punishable under existing laws (like causing death by dangerous or careless driving did), discuss.... (and lets try and keep it about the law rather than degenerate into pro or anti cycling - vain hope).
Lets also hope that no-one trots out the moronic trope that the RTA doesn't apply to cyclists as stated on a number of news interviews when clearly it does and to say otherwise takes a special sort of stupidity or willingness to lie outright.
I recall death/serious injury by careless/dangerous being introduced in around 1990. Much of the debate then also seemed to be "but it's already covered". Successful prosecutions seemed rare.
It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to have a similar offence for a cyclist.
I don't understand why manslaughter can't cover the lot?
I don't understand why manslaughter can't cover the lot?
Prove an underlying offence of careless cycling and then prove that it was (therefore) unlawful but also dangerous?
I have no real issue with it because I see no logical distinction between a driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle being subject to punishment for causing death or serious injury and another class of road user, in this case a cyclist, also being similarly liable. The real question is whether it ought to be extended to other road users, e.g. pedestrians and horse riders.
We’ve gone too far down the track of specific offences (e.g. assaults against police, emergency workers, shop workers - all of which could be dealt with as common assaults) to reverse course now.
Prove an underlying offence of careless cycling and then prove that it was (therefore) unlawful but also dangerous?
I have no real issue with it because I see no logical distinction between a driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle being subject to punishment for causing death or serious injury and another class of road user, in this case a cyclist, also being similarly liable. The real question is whether it ought to be extended to other road users, e.g. pedestrians and horse riders.
We’ve gone too far down the track of specific offences (e.g. assaults against police, emergency workers, shop workers - all of which could be dealt with as common assaults) to reverse course now.
I see your point, but the opposite is how far do we go or do we at some point say enough is enough....
Your right in that really if they are going to apply it to cyclists it needs to cover al road users, a pedestrian crossing carelessly can kill a cyclist (as a simple example).
I see your point, but the opposite is how far do we go or do we at some point say enough is enough....
That would require an analysis of the difference between the proposed offence and any other offence that might be pursued instead. Manslaughter and causing death by dangerous driving are not identical offences, causing death by careless driving even less so. And where death does not result, manslaughter has no application at all so one is left with the offences against the person.
Alternatively, teach judges what a machine is and therefore what constitutes "mechanically propelled" and we wouldn't need new laws to cover dangerous cycling.
N.B. Where I live, we don't need new laws or new interpretations, we just need the police to enforce the existing laws.
If a conveyance is maintaining a speed of 40mph up a slight incline without the rider pedalling, it is a motorised vehicle regardless of whether or not it otheriwse looks very much like a push bike.
The majority of dangerous/careless/reckless/just plain sh*t driving I see is by the riders of such uninsured, unlicensed, etc. electric motorcycles.
N.B. Where I live, we don't need new laws or new interpretations, we just need the police to enforce the existing laws.
If a conveyance is maintaining a speed of 40mph up a slight incline without the rider pedalling, it is a motorised vehicle regardless of whether or not it otheriwse looks very much like a push bike.
Sadly that's not just where you live.
I don't understand why manslaughter can't cover the lot?
Prove an underlying offence of careless cycling and then prove that it was (therefore) unlawful but also dangerous?
I have no real issue with it because I see no logical distinction between a driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle being subject to punishment for causing death or serious injury and another class of road user, in this case a cyclist, also being similarly liable.
I was suggesting that causing death with a motor vehicle should also be covered by manslaughter.
After all, apart from on the roads, what other scenarios are there where you can do something unlawful that is dangerous and causes death but you
don't get prosecuted for manslaughter?
And why is it that manslaughter does not apply on a highway?
I was suggesting that causing death with a motor vehicle should also be covered by manslaughter.
Which it was for many years, the reason given (when they started looking at it) for the change in law is that it was very hard to get convictions as many jurors took a 'there but for the grace of god go I' and didn't want to convict even if the 'letter of the law' said they should. Causing death by dangerous/careless/while uninsured was meant to remove some of that emotion. I still have the issue that normally in law we punish for the action not the result, with 'causing death by' we punish the 'haphazard chance' result that it happened to cause death in
this case and not the action of dangerous driving.
If a conveyance is maintaining a speed of 40mph up a slight incline without the rider pedalling, it is a motorised vehicle regardless of whether or not it otheriwse looks very much like a push bike.
Here here, been struggling to get my local force to take this seriously for 5 years and still all the uberlivereat couriers are on illegal motorbikes, worst is that they then 'get away' with other infractions like using the pavement where the police may sensibly turn a blind eye to actual push bikes doing it.
So are you arguing against causing death by x laws altogether or just their application to cyclists?
So are you arguing against causing death by x laws altogether or just their application to cyclists?
All, I have previously argued against the driving ones on the same basis.
The answer as to why is probably to be found in Hansard.
Actions have consequences.
If you want to risk your own life, many people would say that that is your choice. If the risk fails, you pay the consequences.
If you want to risk other people's lives, that is not your choice to make. However, if the risk fails and you take an innocent person's life, it would be perverse to say that that's their problem and that you should not be punished more for killing someone than someone who drove dangerously and didn't kill anyone.
If you batter someone (what most people think assault means) and they die, that's manslaughter or murder. If not that's assault and battery or common assault (or GBH, ABH, or whatever). Same action, different offence and punishment for a different outcome.
The test for dangerous driving is effectively subjective insofar as it cannot be scientifically measured. Doris who never exceeds 25mph on her weekly shop will likely have a different opinion than Kev who drifts his car round roundabouts to try to impress schoolgirls.
If your driving is a causal factor in somebody's death, not so much subjectivity involved.
Which it was for many years, the reason given (when they started looking at it) for the change in law is that it was very hard to get convictions as many jurors took a 'there but for the grace of god go I' and didn't want to convict even if the 'letter of the law' said they should. Causing death by dangerous/careless/while uninsured was meant to remove some of that emotion. I still have the issue that normally in law we punish for the action not the result, with 'causing death by' we punish the 'haphazard chance' result that it happened to cause death in this case and not the action of dangerous driving.
Well doesn't manslaughter also depend on the happenchance that some unlawful action results in death?
Bad Spelling x 1
View List
Agree x 1
View List