- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Provocative from Hark Hodson - new Law may help by the side door
The fascinating thing about this debate is it would result in maximum one or two cyclists being jailed per year , but the drop in "dangerous" charging thresholds to accommodate & make the legislation effective would then see hundreds more drivers jailed...so it's a yes from me.
https://x.com/markandcharlie/status/1789024994011365654
The thread is worth a read. The logic is afaics:
Hodson's suggestion is that
1 Definitions of dangerous / careless have been aligned across cycles & motor vehicles.
2 Therefore, in order to capture cycles charging standards will tighten in practice.
3 So it means this tightening will also apply to motors.
Elementary, My Dear Watson?
https://x.com/mattwardman/status/1792611824342544592
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 1 hour 40 min ago
Could it be that an industry * with vast wealth and long cultivated influence, which is now seen as providing something both practically and...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 59 min ago
Presumably a) expense b) for something that (mostly) works against your customers' convenience? And the usual "but emergencies - what about when...
- Aluminium can 1 hour 58 min ago
Is there any real world evidence that slightly reducing the weight of your crank arms actually makes your bike faster? Seems like a hell of lot of...
- David9694 3 hours 4 min ago
Remembrance event driving incident sees woman reported (paywall)...
- quiff 6 hours 24 min ago
I was going to suggest the Fairlight Strael too, and went to check if it came in on budget. While there, I finally ordered the frameset I've been...
- quiff 9 hours 20 min ago
"No darling, I said a cactus bike holder, not a bike cactus holder."...
- Andrewbanshee 11 hours 35 min ago
I have visited Guernsey and my wife goes there a few times a year for work. This act of premeditated violence shocks me. There are quite a lot of...
- hawkinspeter 12 hours 1 min ago
You could well be right. Personally, I think Avonvale Rd is just a disaster for having two way traffic. So many drivers think the traffic calming...
- hawkinspeter 12 hours 7 min ago
Although Muller Rd isn't great to cycle on (the north end, anyhow), it's certainly not the worst. I'm definitely in the "brave and bold cyclist" at...
Add new comment
10 comments
Unfortunately Jurors are still in the picture. they will consider any driving practice that looks not to dissimilar to their own driving to be dangerous. so you only need 3 shit drivers on a jury for the driver to beaqquited. Meanwhile those jurors will probably not cycle so they will see any cycling that might them feel a little uncomfortable as a pedestrian as dangerous.
Cyclist doing 25mph - dangerous, filtering - dangerous, cycling on shared use paths - dangerous. headphones - dangerous, no hi vis - dangerous.
Dangerous Cycling Law Ditched Due To U.K. Election Called For July
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2024/05/22/dangerous-cycling-la...
Briggs seems unphased by the company he's now in with the people who have latched on to his cause for their own reasons, and he promises to be back.
There's another grieving person, this time a father, who's bit of legislation, introduced by Kim Leadbeater MP also presumably also lost called dr Ian greenwood. This was in relation to younger drivers.
Both he and Briggs are, in their different ways, brushing under the carpet the way drivers of all ages kill themselves, passengers, each other and vulnerable innocents in significant numbers every fucking month.
Perhaps that's all too big a hill for greenwood to climb, understandable perhaps, but there's something about both men's side-steppping way of communicating that I don't like. That's notwithstanding that having graduated licensing for younger/ newly qualified drivers isn't a help - but for me the implication that everyone else is fine thank-you and that's all we need to be doing is too strong.
I chatted about this with Ian Greenwood.
The 10 minute rule procedure is explicitly there for raising issue in the house, unlike the IDS culture war amendment accepted by Ministers targetting Captain Mainwaring voters.
The rationale for graduated licences is that 17-24 drivers are 4x as likely to be killed in a collision as an average driver. It is a specific measure for which we have a strong evidence base from around the world.
I support that, as one measure in a far wider programme - including specifics like a 2/3 lower drinbk drive limit, and attention to infra based on LHAs actually being made to apply their Public Sector Equality Duty to all travel modes.
The Manifesto for Road Safety wrt the GE that Greenwood retweeted yesterday is broader, and comes from PACTS (I'd add a lot more too, but we start from where we are):
https://www.pacts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/PACTS-Manifesto-for-Road-Saf...
My chat with Dr Greenwood is here:
https://x.com/mattwardman/status/1788830983787024815
Hark (the Herald Angels Sing) Hodson.
Will have to have a read and obviously his professional judgement trumps random Internet posters like me ... but I have my doubts!
Me too. It seems that in the rare case a cyclist does end up in the dock, they already seem to get very disproportionate treatment compared to drivers.
Of course, it's hard to draw a comprehensive comparison when cyclists killing people is so rare compared to unending tidal wave of drivers doing the same. But even so, if someone is able to justify (for example) Alliston's 18-month prison sentence based on the roadworthiness of his bike, in comparison to the suspended sentence of this woman, who was paying so little attention that she didn't notice a corner in the road, and ended up killing a man on the pavement - I'm all ears.
It would be nice if this new legislation somehow prevented the courts from tripping over themselves to excuse the acts of negligence, or wilful aggression committed in cars, and ensuring they receive a fraction of the punishment as the same act in another context (like negligence in an industrial setting, or an act of aggression with a weapon). I very much doubt it though.
I thought the example posted the other day where the driver claimed to have only not looked at the road for 2 seconds and didn't even know they'd hit anyone was bad.
But that one with the driver saying "He just came out of nowhere" ffs, unbelievable death by dangerous driving and still only get suspended sentence & community service, how does that work ?
Would Briggs have been satisfied with that kind of sentence for Alliston ?
He puts quite a lot of weight on systems inside the CPS / Police to ensure consistency.
IMO the Jury's out.
I have no doubts.
There will be exemplary sentences to each and every cyclist that gets to court for this. The sentences will be harsher than if said cyclist was driving a car. The press and 'public' are baying for blood (as long as it's not spilled by themselves driving), the politicians and courts will give them blood.
To send a message of course, whilst the car-nage continues unabated.