Death by dangerous cycling

[altus 538]

So basically, to sum it all up. A cyclist riding like a maniac on an illegal cycle who kills someone, should be let off because sometimes motorists are also let off?

 

Interesting

Or an argument that motorists behaving that way shouldn't be let off.

[alchemist 35]

Or an argument that motorists behaving that way shouldn't be let off.

 

But then the argument would be that motorists should be let off because cyclists are let off. Sadly the argument is cyclic (if you will pardon the pun).

 

Both should face far higher penalties

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

How do you ensure an 8yr old on a bike has insurance?

By not allowing the 8-year-old on the road at all and thereby obviating the need for road-user insurance.

[altus 538]

But then the argument would be that motorists should be let off because cyclists are let off. Sadly the argument is cyclic (if you will pardon the pun).

The cyclist wasn't let off. The argument is that cyclists and motorists who kill people are treated differently and they shouldn't be. That's not circular.

[ads36 214]

alchemist

 

The excuse thats usually trotted out is that it will put children off cycling!!!

 

the main reason is that cycling is safe. It's so safe, that insurers often include 3rd party cycling insurance with their building/contents policies, for free. It's so safe, that freak accidents make the news.

 

400 pedestrians are killed every year. no one mentions them, we do nothing.

 

1 death involves a cyclist, and it's in the national headlines for a month, and we have a national debate about how we can make cycling even more unattractive.

 

600 pedestrians have been killed since the tragic death of Kim Briggs. what are we doing about the dangers of motor traffic? - sod all.

Edited August 30, 2017 by ads36

[Eater Sundae 12]

The cyclist wasn't let off. The argument is that cyclists and motorists who kill people are treated differently and they shouldn't be. That's not circular.

 

There is a difference, though. A cyclist riding dangerously is unlikely to kill anyone except himself. A driver driving dangerously is much more likely to kill others. Driving dangerously is a much bigger issue than riding dangerously.

[Bargepole23 337]

By not allowing the 8-year-old on the road at all and thereby obviating the need for road-user insurance.

 

Just the road, or road and pavement?

 

You still haven't confirmed if you have insurance for crossing the road on foot. You might step out in front of a cyclist or car.

 

Or maybe you should stay at home and thereby obviate the need for road-user insurance.

[Cyclone 10]

 

So basically, to sum it all up. A cyclist riding like a maniac on an illegal cycle who kills someone, should be let off because sometimes motorists are also let off?

 

Interesting

 

No, I didn't suggest that at all. He wasn't riding like a maniac btw, his error was riding without a front brake.

Perhaps though if cyclists are going to do time for killing people who step out into the road, then motorists should be treat the same. I'd even go as far as to say that motorists have a higher duty of care, due to the higher speed and massively higher weight of their vehicles, which make them much more dangerous.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2017 at 08:12 ----------

 

But then the argument would be that motorists should be let off because cyclists are let off. Sadly the argument is cyclic (if you will pardon the pun).

 

Both should face far higher penalties

 

It isn't circular at all. They should both have appropriate laws applied and enforced, including sentencing. Currently this case highlights the fact that it isn't equitable.

You saw the examples given by WalkleyIan, do you think those sentences were correct?

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2017 at 08:17 ----------

 

By not allowing the 8-year-old on the road at all and thereby obviating the need for road-user insurance.

 

We've done this discussion before, perhaps we should take it a more appropriate thread. You know that I and most other cyclists think that you're wrong, you'll have a minority of idiots who think the road belongs to cars who support you, and that's it.

[samssong 10]

As an experienced club cyclist who has ridden fixed wheel on many occasions then riding on the road without a front break is riding like a maniac in my opinion .

[Cyclone 10]

As an experienced club cyclist who has ridden fixed wheel on many occasions then riding on the road without a front break is riding like a maniac in my opinion .

 

It's not a helpful way to describe it IMO because it's so vague.

[Eater Sundae 12]

As an experienced club cyclist who has ridden fixed wheel on many occasions then riding on the road without a front break is riding like a maniac in my opinion .

 

I think it depends on the situation. The heavy, sit up and beg european type bikes with back pedal brake and no front brake seem to manage OK. I think the key is how they are ridden. Pottering about at just above walking pace is fine.

 

However, the sporting type of fixed wheeler is meant to be ridden quickly, partly to give a high enough cadence for comfort, as well as having a sportier, more agile frame. They probably have much higher gearing than the back pedal braked clunker, and so harder to start from standstill. The rider of the modern fixie is therefore more likely to loathe the idea of stopping and looks to get round the obstacle, whereas the clunker rider is less bothered, as he has less momentum to recover, and he has a lower gear for when he needs to restart.

[therascal 10]

just come accross this. http://www.lep.co.uk/your-lancashire/north-west/drunk-cyclist-locked-up-and-prosecuted-under-140-year-old-law-1-8730014

Edited August 31, 2017 by therascal