Cycling and the law: The new ‘dangerous cycling’ law is a dangerous distraction

Having read the consultation document it does have the following horrendous misstatement in it - 

7.6 Bicycles used on the road must comply with Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regulations. These require braking systems on both front and rear wheels.

Have they never heard of penny farthings, recumbent bicycles, tricycles and worst of all fixed wheel bikes without front brakes imported by temporary visitors to the U.K. Makes you wonder if they know what they are talking about.

No problems with the proposed law as long as it is extended to every one using the roads;- pedestrians, horse riders, mobility scooter users, roller skaters, skateboarders etc.

Road CC are you sure 3 deaths and 108 serious injuries were actually the fault of/caused by cyclists in 2016? This doesn't tally up with the report as linked by Eaton Rifle/below which shows that a signigicant/majority of deaths are not caused by people on bikes, or are these figures including deaths of motorists caused by bicyclists and/or other cyclists?

Eaton Rifle already mentioned this but it's massively, massively important!

When looking at implementing a new law the report clearly states that only 4 out of 20 pedestrian deaths (over the last 6 years including 2016) involving a pedal cycle were attributed to be the fault of the person on a bike.

This is the footnote, unsurprisingly left right to the end despite its importance https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-safety-review thia review covers 2011-2016 inclusive.

"For completeness, not all of these fatalities were attributed to cyclist error: “15/20 fatalities were assigned at least one contributory factor, with 6/20 assigning a factor to the pedestrian only, 5/20 assigning a factor to both the pedestrian and the cyclist, and 4/20 assigning a factor to the cyclist only.”

@Davel - my useless Labour MP can't even be bothered to kick the Tories. She just seems to go along with whatever comes out of Westminster. Opposition, my arse.

How often does the CPS seem to use "careless driving" as the offence when they should have used "dangerous driving" but thought they had a better chance of a conviction using the lesser charge?  It looks like this new law will be just one law: "dangerous or careless cycling".  Bringing in a new law for the sake of it seems like a waste of time and effort; after all, "wanton or furious cycling" (an old law, though not as old as the one which covers GBH, IIRC) was clearly fine given that was what Mr Alliston was convicted under... 

Thoroughly depressing: the main article, and all of the comments I've read here are spot on.

Oppose this for all the reasons you've noted, to anyone who'll listen: it could well be that a Joe Bloggs who doesn't give a shit about cycling doesn't want the government faffing around with pointless laws. It could be that your useless Labour MP just wants any reason to kick the Tories and make it look like they're not putting everything possible into Brexit.

Oppose it because the author is possibly biased; oppose it because it's definitely a biased, poor quality report; oppose it because it is stupid, pandering law; and oppose it because more members of the public will think that this is the 'right' way to go than keep things as is.

Remember - the roads review report hasn't even been published yet (4 years now?). If we put up with this, they will keep pulling this utter bullshit.

Let's just remind ourselves of the actual facts of the matter. 

Buried in footnote 30 on page 26 of Laura Thomas' "independent" review is this gem commenting on the 20 pedestrian fatalities arising from collisions with cyclists between 2011 and 2016:

For completeness, not all of these fatalities were attributed to cyclist error:"15/20 fatalities were assigned at least one contributory factor, with 6/20 assigning a factor to the pedestrian only, 5/20 assigning a factor to both the pedestrian and the cyclist, and 4/20 assigning a factor to the cyclist only."

Let's take that first phrase:  "not all of those fatalities".  Actually only four out of the twenty are the fault of the cyclist.  That's ONE in FIVE.  20%.  Too fucking right not all of them were attributable to cyclist error.  In fact, more were attributable to pedestrian error.  Surely the correct phrase should be "not all of those fatalities were attributed to pedestrian error".  Mathematics not your strong point, is it, Laura?

So, with a massive FOUR potential charges every six years of causing death by dangerous cycling, as Mark points out, this new law will not even be used once a year.  However, you can be sure that if it is introduced, there will be a fanfare of publicity claiming improved safety while drivers carry on killing and maiming thousands of people every fucking year,  with impunity in most cases.  

Surprising news... or should I say, not in the least bit surprising news. 

For me it raises the question... is it OK to create legislation purely to pander to the masses?

The obvious thought is no, however, when you look at it, you could argue most legislation in some ways panders to public opinion, so maybe we are just seeing how the world really works in an area we have a vested interest / deeper insight into? 

I'd also argue that if this law will effect so few people, is it really the end of the world bringing this law into effect? 

The big counter argument is yes, there is a problem here, because by pandering to the masses to you are confirming to the masses that their opinions, which by and by are formed through ignornce, are right. Cyclists are dangerous and are acting as a law onto themselves currently. That to me is totally unacceptable.

Laura Thomas is not an independent party to this and should not have been involved. She has previously held a board position at the Frieght Transport Association and is a serving Deputy Traffic Commissioner. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism:

1. We must do something

2. This is something

3. Therefore, we must do this.

It seems that the Conservatives and Labour have a vanishingly small interest in promoting cycling. Shame.