3 ms·

It's remarkable how it's suddenly an issue when it's an incident with a bike, but all the deaths and injuries caused by cars are just treated as a fact of life.

jjgreen 2y ago
"Causing death by dangerous driving" is on the statute books, "... by dangerous cycling" is not (yet).
- fanf2 2y ago
  Because motorists cause thousands of deaths every year, whereas bike riders cause about 0. Motorists kill so many people it is too logistically difficult to prosecute them for murder, or manslaughter, or even using health and safety law. Normalization of deviance in action.
  - rad_gruchalski 2y ago
    > whereas bike riders cause about 0 citation needed
- tomatocracy 2y ago
  Indeed, and as the article points out, there are recent cases where the lack of such a law has demonstrably been an issue (the case of Kim Briggs, hit and killed while crossing at a pedestrian crossing by Charlie Alliston is mentioned but I believe there are are others where prosecution was thought to be too difficult due to the lack of specific laws).
  - _Wintermute 2y ago
    There's already manslaughter which Charlie Alliston was charged with. I wish more motorists were charted with manslaughter rather than "death by careless driving" which has far lighter sentencing guidelines. This is largely just culture war nonsense by the Tory party trying to get more of the right-wing vote.
    - tomatocracy 2y ago
      Alliston was acquitted of manslaughter. Given it was a jury trial and there is little contemporaneous reporting of the trial, details of the manslaughter charge or his defence to it (as opposed to the conviction and sentencing which was widely reported), it's difficult to know why this was. But the bar for proving manslaughter (whether on the basis of gross negligence or an intentional unlawful act) is quite a lot higher than that driving was "dangerous" (and which in turn is a higher bar than that it was "careless") - this is why it's rarely prosecuted for cars. It does seem reasonably likely that in a counterfactual world where a very similar fact pattern had occurred but in a car, he would have been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving - and his resulting custodial sentence would likely have been meaningfully longer (the offence he was actually convicted of carries a maximum sentence of only 2 years vs causing death by dangerous driving which can now carry up to a life sentence - although at the time of his offence the maximum sentence was 14 years).
nerdponx 2y ago
Making it a crime allows you to accumulate crime stats for it, which allows you to report on how bad the crime rate is, etc.
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  Exactly. Using the old “wanton and furious driving” charge makes it difficult to distinguish between equestrian and cycling incidents.
BadHumans 2y ago
I'm a Yank so forgive me but I assume the UK already has laws like vehicular manslaughter and reckless driving so I don't think this is some kind of cycling bad driving good initiative.
- arp242 2y ago
  It's the desperate panic-driven attempt by a dying government to not spectacularly lose the next election. Throw enough macaroni at a wall and some of it will stick, and blabber on about enough non-consecutive issues and maybe you'll win some voters. Other than that it's basically a non-issue.
- pgalvin 2y ago
  It’s likely a mixture of genuine and ulterior motives, in this case. The amendment was proposed by a politician who seems to believe in it genuinely. Furthermore, there is a genuine gap in the law. There’s a case to be made that the law is necessary for even an extremely small number of cases. On the other hand, the governing party is on the verge of losing power and has made a LOT of moves to inflame a “culture war” to attract right-wing votes. Among attacks on minorities, immigration, homelessness, etc., this has included a “culture war on green policies”[1]. The latter has included reducing investment in cycling and walking infrastructure and opposition to safety improvements on residential roads (such as lower speed limits) if they inconvenience drivers. The prime minister has claimed there is a “war on motorists” - in reference to local government policies to reduce air pollution, lower residential speed limits, improve bus lanes, and reduce people’s distance to businesses to promote walking over driving - and vowed to stop or limit the above[2]. Whilst there are two sides to all these policies (largely economic and cost-of-living arguments against), public statements often use emotive language to foster an “us vs. them” atmosphere. In that environment, it is easy to see how this amendment may be a happy accident that bolsters their perceived “anti-green” and “pro-motorists” credentials. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/01/uk/britain-rishi-sunak-climate-policies-analysis-gbr-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/01/uk/britain-rishi-sunak-cl... [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66965714 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66965714
ggm 2y ago
Anomalies in the law don't always reflect this kind of bias. The fact is that an increase in cycling and increased (defensive?) use of pavement (sidewalk for americans) to ride on, has led to an increase in risk. And, there is an outbreak of antisocial behaviour in places like the canal towpath which is leading to a problem. I suspect motor vehicle drivers already have laws governing reckless driving. Thats all.
- masfuerte 2y ago
  In the recent case where a cyclist killed a pensioner the police did not prosecute, they said, because the speed limit doesn't apply to bicycles. However, careless and dangerous cycling are both offences already. If the cyclist was dangerous why wasn't he prosecuted? If he wasn't then this new law wouldn't have applied either. This law is just kneejerk nonsense. The problems you describe are worsening because the police won't enforce the laws we have. In particular, they ignore pavement cycling because the Home Office asked them to!
  - crtasm 2y ago
    Could you link to reporting on that case?
idontwantthis 2y ago
In the US we added laws to make it less illegal to kill people as long as you are driving. It’s not “manslaughter” it’s “vehicular manslaughter” which I guess we’re all just supposed to accept in the name of progress.
- stefs 2y ago
  As the saying goes: if you want to kill someone, wait till they get on a bike and then just run them over with a car.
SSJPython 2y ago
There are laws that deal with cars.
rich_sasha 2y ago
Where I live, in the last 12 months or so, there is a marked increase in totally insane cycling. Ploughing through red lights on busy junctions, going on roads down the wrong way or zooming on the pavement. Often on e bikes that are clearly not road legal (too fast, or go without pedalling). I'm not talking about confused old ladies. It's dangerous and annoying as hell. I'm a keen cyclist but for goodness sakes, within the rules of the highway code!
tim333 2y ago
That's not really the case. The new law came about because Matt Briggs wife was killed by a reckless cyclist who got 18 months because it was a bicycle but would have faced life if driving a car. The new law evens things up. Clearer article in the Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/19/justice-dangerous-cyclists-matt-briggs-legal-amendment/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/19/justice-dangerou...

jjgreen 2y ago

"Causing death by dangerous driving" is on the statute books, "... by dangerous cycling" is not (yet).

fanf2 2y ago
Because motorists cause thousands of deaths every year, whereas bike riders cause about 0. Motorists kill so many people it is too logistically difficult to prosecute them for murder, or manslaughter, or even using health and safety law. Normalization of deviance in action.
- rad_gruchalski 2y ago
  > whereas bike riders cause about 0 citation needed
tomatocracy 2y ago
Indeed, and as the article points out, there are recent cases where the lack of such a law has demonstrably been an issue (the case of Kim Briggs, hit and killed while crossing at a pedestrian crossing by Charlie Alliston is mentioned but I believe there are are others where prosecution was thought to be too difficult due to the lack of specific laws).
- _Wintermute 2y ago
  There's already manslaughter which Charlie Alliston was charged with. I wish more motorists were charted with manslaughter rather than "death by careless driving" which has far lighter sentencing guidelines. This is largely just culture war nonsense by the Tory party trying to get more of the right-wing vote.
  - tomatocracy 2y ago
    Alliston was acquitted of manslaughter. Given it was a jury trial and there is little contemporaneous reporting of the trial, details of the manslaughter charge or his defence to it (as opposed to the conviction and sentencing which was widely reported), it's difficult to know why this was. But the bar for proving manslaughter (whether on the basis of gross negligence or an intentional unlawful act) is quite a lot higher than that driving was "dangerous" (and which in turn is a higher bar than that it was "careless") - this is why it's rarely prosecuted for cars. It does seem reasonably likely that in a counterfactual world where a very similar fact pattern had occurred but in a car, he would have been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving - and his resulting custodial sentence would likely have been meaningfully longer (the offence he was actually convicted of carries a maximum sentence of only 2 years vs causing death by dangerous driving which can now carry up to a life sentence - although at the time of his offence the maximum sentence was 14 years).

nerdponx 2y ago

Making it a crime allows you to accumulate crime stats for it, which allows you to report on how bad the crime rate is, etc.

spacebanana7 2y ago
Exactly. Using the old “wanton and furious driving” charge makes it difficult to distinguish between equestrian and cycling incidents.

BadHumans 2y ago

I'm a Yank so forgive me but I assume the UK already has laws like vehicular manslaughter and reckless driving so I don't think this is some kind of cycling bad driving good initiative.

arp242 2y ago
It's the desperate panic-driven attempt by a dying government to not spectacularly lose the next election. Throw enough macaroni at a wall and some of it will stick, and blabber on about enough non-consecutive issues and maybe you'll win some voters. Other than that it's basically a non-issue.
pgalvin 2y ago
It’s likely a mixture of genuine and ulterior motives, in this case. The amendment was proposed by a politician who seems to believe in it genuinely. Furthermore, there is a genuine gap in the law. There’s a case to be made that the law is necessary for even an extremely small number of cases. On the other hand, the governing party is on the verge of losing power and has made a LOT of moves to inflame a “culture war” to attract right-wing votes. Among attacks on minorities, immigration, homelessness, etc., this has included a “culture war on green policies”[1]. The latter has included reducing investment in cycling and walking infrastructure and opposition to safety improvements on residential roads (such as lower speed limits) if they inconvenience drivers. The prime minister has claimed there is a “war on motorists” - in reference to local government policies to reduce air pollution, lower residential speed limits, improve bus lanes, and reduce people’s distance to businesses to promote walking over driving - and vowed to stop or limit the above[2]. Whilst there are two sides to all these policies (largely economic and cost-of-living arguments against), public statements often use emotive language to foster an “us vs. them” atmosphere. In that environment, it is easy to see how this amendment may be a happy accident that bolsters their perceived “anti-green” and “pro-motorists” credentials. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/01/uk/britain-rishi-sunak-climate-policies-analysis-gbr-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/01/uk/britain-rishi-sunak-cl... [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66965714 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66965714

ggm 2y ago

Anomalies in the law don't always reflect this kind of bias. The fact is that an increase in cycling and increased (defensive?) use of pavement (sidewalk for americans) to ride on, has led to an increase in risk. And, there is an outbreak of antisocial behaviour in places like the canal towpath which is leading to a problem. I suspect motor vehicle drivers already have laws governing reckless driving. Thats all.

masfuerte 2y ago
In the recent case where a cyclist killed a pensioner the police did not prosecute, they said, because the speed limit doesn't apply to bicycles. However, careless and dangerous cycling are both offences already. If the cyclist was dangerous why wasn't he prosecuted? If he wasn't then this new law wouldn't have applied either. This law is just kneejerk nonsense. The problems you describe are worsening because the police won't enforce the laws we have. In particular, they ignore pavement cycling because the Home Office asked them to!
- crtasm 2y ago
  Could you link to reporting on that case?

idontwantthis 2y ago

In the US we added laws to make it less illegal to kill people as long as you are driving. It’s not “manslaughter” it’s “vehicular manslaughter” which I guess we’re all just supposed to accept in the name of progress.

stefs 2y ago
As the saying goes: if you want to kill someone, wait till they get on a bike and then just run them over with a car.

SSJPython 2y ago

There are laws that deal with cars.

rich_sasha 2y ago

Where I live, in the last 12 months or so, there is a marked increase in totally insane cycling. Ploughing through red lights on busy junctions, going on roads down the wrong way or zooming on the pavement. Often on e bikes that are clearly not road legal (too fast, or go without pedalling). I'm not talking about confused old ladies. It's dangerous and annoying as hell. I'm a keen cyclist but for goodness sakes, within the rules of the highway code!

tim333 2y ago

That's not really the case. The new law came about because Matt Briggs wife was killed by a reckless cyclist who got 18 months because it was a bicycle but would have faced life if driving a car. The new law evens things up. Clearer article in the Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/19/justice-dangerous-cyclists-matt-briggs-legal-amendment/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/19/justice-dangerou...