Government announces cycle safety review in wake of Alliston case

Road.cc wrote:

In the interim over 5000 people are estimated to have been killed on UK roads - around 1200 pedestrians and over 300 cyclists

Typo or are the remaining 3500 victims occupants of motor vehicles? Still a horrendously disproportionate response.

Maybe if the Gvt followed through on their 2014 promise to review traffic laws as a whole, more cyclists wouldn't feel like they have to ride aggressively to survive on the roads...

hawkinspeter wrote:

My life fades. The vision dims. All that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos, ruined dreams, this wasted land. But most of all, I remember the road warrior the man we called Max. To understand who he was we have to go back to the other time, when the world was powered by the black fuel and the desert sprouted great cities of pipe and steel — gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten two mighty warrior tribes went to war and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel they were nothing. They'd built a house of straw. The thundering machines sputtered and stopped. Their leaders talked and talked and talked, but nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world crumbled. Cities exploded — a whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear. Men began to feed on men.
On the roads it was a white-line nightmare. Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice, and in this maelstrom of decay ordinary men were battered and smashed — men like Max, the warrior Max. In the roar of an engine, he lost everything and became a shell of a man, a burnt-out desolate man, a man haunted by the demons of his past, a man who wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here, in this blighted place, that he learned to live again.

No! No more talk! We go in! We kill! We'll kill them !

HarrogateSpa wrote:

By the way, Jesse Norman is a man not a lady. Mr Farrelly who wrote the piece ought to know that. It would be no bad thing if more of us were aware of who the minister for cycling is, and wrote polite but persuasive letters setting out some of the points which have been made in the comments here.

Yes write to Jesse Norman and your own MP, our own lack of action on this matter will be our downfall.

ciderman_100 wrote:

One thing you have to remember is in the fixie death the pedestrian was crossing the road whilst not paying attention if she had used the crossing as per highway code if he had a front brake as per the highway code perhaps she would be alive and he wouldn't be in jail. If car drivers gave more room if they didn't become frustrated by their time behind the wheel. In a perfect world none of this would happen you can't legislate for fuckwits, jaywalkers or self important car owners it will still happen it's human nature the more you are encompassed by rules the more the traces will be kicked. The government will persecute the minority of voters not the group who are the wrongdoing.

I don't think the Highway Code says anything about either of those things. In any case, there is no requirement in law for pedestrians to use pedestrian crossings, and it would be a very bad idea to make such a law.

There is, on the other hand, a legal requirement to have two independent braking systems on your bike, for good reasons.

Vehlin wrote:

Far too many getting on their high horse about this one. Yes deaths caused by cyclists are rare, but that doesn't mean that manslaughter is the only appropriate charge to being in these cases. If Alliston had been knowingly driving a car with faulty brakes it would have been a clear case of causing death by dangerous driving. Manslaughter was not the appropriate charge in his case but it was the only one available. Just because it's rare doesn't mean legislation doesn't need updating.

He was convicted and sentenced to eighteen months in jail. Far worse than a motorist would have received. How does that demonstrate that the law needs changing?

 The actions of one fixie rider are now being used to justify restrictions being brought in (imagine how good the KSI stats will look when cyclists aren't allowed on A roads, for example).

 And don't imagine that infrastructure will be built to achieve that end: that would involve spending money and there isn't a magic money tree (unless you work for a political party in Northern Ireland).

brooksby wrote:

Vehlin wrote:

Far too many getting on their high horse about this one. Yes deaths caused by cyclists are rare, but that doesn't mean that manslaughter is the only appropriate charge to being in these cases. If Alliston had been knowingly driving a car with faulty brakes it would have been a clear case of causing death by dangerous driving. Manslaughter was not the appropriate charge in his case but it was the only one available. Just because it's rare doesn't mean legislation doesn't need updating.

He was convicted and sentenced to eighteen months in jail. Far worse than a motorist would have received. How does that demonstrate that the law needs changing?

 The actions of one fixie rider are now being used to justify restrictions being brought in (imagine how good the KSI stats will look when cyclists aren't allowed on A roads, for example).

 And don't imagine that infrastructure will be built to achieve that end: that would involve spending money and there isn't a magic money tree (unless you work for a political party in Northern Ireland).

Because changing the law protects cyclists from draconian charges and sentences? Not sure that was the intention of Mr Briggs.

My concern here is the use of high profile deaths in the statement. They are saying it's up to the media to decide which actions are worthy of redress.

Vehlin wrote:

Far too many getting on their high horse about this one. Yes deaths caused by cyclists are rare, but that doesn't mean that manslaughter is the only appropriate charge to being in these cases. If Alliston had been knowingly driving a car with faulty brakes it would have been a clear case of causing death by dangerous driving. Manslaughter was not the appropriate charge in his case but it was the only one available. Just because it's rare doesn't mean legislation doesn't need updating.

So of you have limited time and resources would a rational person seek to fix the problem that results in 2 or 3 deaths a year, or the one that results in 100s a year?

So of you have limited time and resources would a rational person seek to fix the problem that results in 2 or 3 deaths a year, or the one that results in 100s a year?

[/quote]

I think the "problem" they're trying to fix is their standing in the polls.  Lives aren't a concern when set against that weighty matter.  So they pander to the Daily Mail.  In that sense their actions are rational, just despicable.

Vehlin wrote:

If Alliston had been knowingly driving a car with faulty brakes it would have been a clear case of causing death by dangerous driving. Manslaughter was not the appropriate charge in his case but it was the only one available. Just because it's rare doesn't mean legislation doesn't need updating.

I wish people would read the whole case instead of simply picking specific facts and using them to justify their ramblings.

The pedestrian stepped out into the road giving Allister a little over 6m in which to stop, this is according to the prosecution. According to the government, at 20mph, the thinking and reaction time is 6m.  He was travelling at 18mph, therefore had as much as 1m in which to stop. No amount of brakes are going to stop a bike within that distance, not front nor rear nor both.

People read that he had only one brake therefore could have stopped if he had two within the distance he had. No he couldn't! I challenge any cyclist to bring their bike to a halt from 18mph in 1m.

Similarly to the driver who killed four cyclists with 3 defective tyres. His excuse was that he hit black ice and therefore even if he had 4 LEGAL tyres, it wouldn't have made a difference. (The fact that it couldn't be proved that he had hit black ice, due to the nature of ice melting, nor could it be proved that he didn't - again read the whole case. ) Regardless, it was taken at face value and he got off scot free. 

Also, there's no such thing as a clear case of causing death by dangerous driving. A friend of mine died when he was mowed down by a cement truck, in broad daylight, on a straight road, good visibility and the trucks own CCTV was used by the prosecution. Police said he would be charged with dangerous driving, first court appeareance he was charged with dangerous driving, at trial the CPS charged him with death by careless driving! Go figure.

What about when a pedestrian walks out into the road, collides with a cyclists who later dies (as happened in Bristol, I think, earlier this year)? Will they be charged with manslaughter?

Notice how another similar case where an old man was hit by a cyclist and died never made the tabloids? Would it be because the pedestrian in Allisters case was a young, pretty mother with a very vocal husband?

This is simply a knee jerk reaction by the government wanting to be seen to be doing something.

jigr69 wrote:

Vehlin wrote:

If Alliston had been knowingly driving a car with faulty brakes it would have been a clear case of causing death by dangerous driving. Manslaughter was not the appropriate charge in his case but it was the only one available. Just because it's rare doesn't mean legislation doesn't need updating.

I wish people would read the whole case instead of simply picking specific facts and using them to justify their ramblings.

The pedestrian stepped out into the road giving Allister a little over 6m in which to stop, this is according to the prosecution. According to the government, at 20mph, the thinking and reaction time is 6m.  He was travelling at 18mph, therefore had as much as 1m in which to stop. No amount of brakes are going to stop a bike within that distance, not front nor rear nor both.

People read that he had only one brake therefore could have stopped if he had two within the distance he had. No he couldn't! I challenge any cyclist to bring their bike to a halt from 18mph in 1m.

Similarly to the driver who killed four cyclists with 3 defective tyres. His excuse was that he hit black ice and therefore even if he had 4 LEGAL tyres, it wouldn't have made a difference. (The fact that it couldn't be proved that he had hit black ice, due to the nature of ice melting, nor could it be proved that he didn't - again read the whole case. ) Regardless, it was taken at face value and he got off scot free. 

Also, there's no such thing as a clear case of causing death by dangerous driving. A friend of mine died when he was mowed down by a cement truck, in broad daylight, on a straight road, good visibility and the trucks own CCTV was used by the prosecution. Police said he would be charged with dangerous driving, first court appeareance he was charged with dangerous driving, at trial the CPS charged him with death by careless driving! Go figure.

What about when a pedestrian walks out into the road, collides with a cyclists who later dies (as happened in Bristol, I think, earlier this year)? Will they be charged with manslaughter?

Notice how another similar case where an old man was hit by a cyclist and died never made the tabloids? Would it be because the pedestrian in Allisters case was a young, pretty mother with a very vocal husband?

This is simply a knee jerk reaction by the government wanting to be seen to be doing something.

Totally agree with you. The prosecution used the case of police mountain bike probably fitted with disc brake instead of using the same bike fitted with front break. I'm pretty sure if they had used the latter, their result would not have been so conclusive. I'm also curious if they going to prosecute driver going 18 mph or higher if their speed is lower than the speed limit.

Alex26c wrote:

jigr69 wrote:

Vehlin wrote:

If Alliston had been knowingly driving a car with faulty brakes it would have been a clear case of causing death by dangerous driving. Manslaughter was not the appropriate charge in his case but it was the only one available. Just because it's rare doesn't mean legislation doesn't need updating.

I wish people would read the whole case instead of simply picking specific facts and using them to justify their ramblings.

The pedestrian stepped out into the road giving Allister a little over 6m in which to stop, this is according to the prosecution. According to the government, at 20mph, the thinking and reaction time is 6m.  He was travelling at 18mph, therefore had as much as 1m in which to stop. No amount of brakes are going to stop a bike within that distance, not front nor rear nor both.

People read that he had only one brake therefore could have stopped if he had two within the distance he had. No he couldn't! I challenge any cyclist to bring their bike to a halt from 18mph in 1m.

Similarly to the driver who killed four cyclists with 3 defective tyres. His excuse was that he hit black ice and therefore even if he had 4 LEGAL tyres, it wouldn't have made a difference. (The fact that it couldn't be proved that he had hit black ice, due to the nature of ice melting, nor could it be proved that he didn't - again read the whole case. ) Regardless, it was taken at face value and he got off scot free. 

Also, there's no such thing as a clear case of causing death by dangerous driving. A friend of mine died when he was mowed down by a cement truck, in broad daylight, on a straight road, good visibility and the trucks own CCTV was used by the prosecution. Police said he would be charged with dangerous driving, first court appeareance he was charged with dangerous driving, at trial the CPS charged him with death by careless driving! Go figure.

What about when a pedestrian walks out into the road, collides with a cyclists who later dies (as happened in Bristol, I think, earlier this year)? Will they be charged with manslaughter?

Notice how another similar case where an old man was hit by a cyclist and died never made the tabloids? Would it be because the pedestrian in Allisters case was a young, pretty mother with a very vocal husband?

This is simply a knee jerk reaction by the government wanting to be seen to be doing something.

Totally agree with you. The prosecution used the case of police mountain bike probably fitted with disc brake instead of using the same bike fitted with front break. I'm pretty sure if they had used the latter, their result would not have been so conclusive. I'm also curious if they going to prosecute driver going 18 mph or higher if their speed is lower than the speed limit.

I've not seen the video if the police test but how do they account for reaction time when they knew exactly what was going on? Probably even had fingers on brake levers waiting.

wycombewheeler wrote:

I've not seen the video if the police test but how do they account for reaction time when they knew exactly what was going on? Probably even had fingers on brake levers waiting.

its not unreasonable to exclude thinking time as part of the test, as you are attempting to ascertain the physical stopping distance of the bike with and without a front brake, and if the test concludes the stopping distance without the front brake far exceeds the limit you had set, whilst the stopping distance with the front brake doesnt, then thinking/reaction time is irrelevant, youve proven not having a front brake contributes to be an inevitable cause of the collision.

whats not reasonable is to setup your test with completely different bikes, run it at seemingly different speeds with different braking points and maybe even a not trying very hard to stop approach on one the bikes, because then its just a nonsense.

jigr69 wrote:

I wish people would read the whole case instead of simply picking specific facts and using them to justify their ramblings.

The pedestrian stepped out into the road giving Allister a little over 6m in which to stop.

Um, you rather undermine your demand that others read the case when you can't even get the main protagonist's name right...

Vehlin wrote:

Far too many getting on their high horse about this one. Yes deaths caused by cyclists are rare, but that doesn't mean that manslaughter is the only appropriate charge to being in these cases. If Alliston had been knowingly driving a car with faulty brakes it would have been a clear case of causing death by dangerous driving. Manslaughter was not the appropriate charge in his case but it was the only one available. Just because it's rare doesn't mean legislation doesn't need updating.

If Alliston had been driving a car with defective brakes and a pedestrian stepped out in front of him on the phone, he wouldn't even have been charged.   If he sounded his horn - the equivalent of a cyclist shouting - it would be seen as a mitigating action, not something that makes the offence worse.

There is no excuse for bad cycling, but bad cycling is such a minor thing compared with bad driving, that I can't help but feel that cyclists are being used as a scapegoat.

beezus fufoon wrote:

I'm with Leviathan on this one - the sheer incompetence, proceduralism, lack of professionalism, and standardised unfocused mediocrity of UK democracy promises a review that will take 20 years to reach the conclusion that it was 98.3% inconclusive and then launch another 20 year review into the original review with equally conclusive results.

I hope so, and I hope that they're just making a headline here, but they're the party of the knee-jerk: always the path of least resistance (it was easier for Cameron to promise and call a referendum than to actually manage the 'European problem' within his party. But then manage the fall-out? Fuck no). And May is a total wallop even compared to that posh chimp.

Complex reviews and evidence-based policy, forget it: we're safe from that. That's why the proper road and sentencing review won't happen.

But stupid simplistic shit that plays to the tabloids, causes division and uncalled-for misery to people that don't vote for them - they manage to get their shit together for that. And there are probably enough numbnut MPs of other colours to push through a load of restrictions on cycling if it came to a free vote.

Pub bike wrote:

Democracy fails us here because there are around 30 million cars in the UK suggesting that most of the electorate own one.

Politicians of both major parties are loathe to upset the motoring majority by doing anything to help those pesky cyclists who are just needlessly riding around slowing down motorists.  I mean they're not actually travelling to work are they? On a bicycle?  How quaint?  Isn't it, well, dangerous??

This is the type of comment I referenced in another section about how sometimes it feels like a load of them have a bad case of the Daily Mail's, in essence they are utterly silly and very tribal which will never be of any benefit to cyclists. The reality is different governments have hammered motorists over the last few decades, there is very little doubt they will continue to do so as well.

I personally passed my cycling proficiency test in the late 1980s which I did well enough at that they put me through to some sort of advanced secondary test which I didn't do as well at. 3 years ago I got my CBT done, last year I did my A2 motorbike tests and this year I decided to do my car tests all because I'll soon move away from London so need easy use of other forms of transport instead of just cycling.  I may even go for my lorry license next year just to continue to add to my license and open up more options.

I've seen plenty of people being stupid in all types of vehicles, there are no exceptions to this, to  the point that even walking seems to be beyond some people. Personally a few years ago on the way to work I was nearly knocked off 3 times in one morning with one car in traffic cutting across me while I was in the cycle lane without signaling or looking in his mirror, then a car reversed out of a drive way on to the main road and thus nearly into me and the third of that cycle ride to work involved me swerving to avoid being doored. 

At the end of the day besides all the whining and the fact criminal acts are still commited by users of other vehicles they are heavily regulated through laws to do with driver testing, vehicle safety tests (MOT), insurance, etc. while at the moment there are in reality none of these for cyclists or for the bicycles they use. Now I'm not sure they need to change much right now but the growing miniority of bell ends need to be stopped by the community of cyclists and certainly not keep being excused by the community before the government deicdes it has to act, no one has ever liked regulation since it brings in unwanted restrictions and extra costs.

embattle wrote:

Pub bike wrote:

Democracy fails us here because there are around 30 million cars in the UK suggesting that most of the electorate own one.

Politicians of both major parties are loathe to upset the motoring majority by doing anything to help those pesky cyclists who are just needlessly riding around slowing down motorists.  I mean they're not actually travelling to work are they? On a bicycle?  How quaint?  Isn't it, well, dangerous??

 

This is the type of comment I referenced in another section about how sometimes it feels like a load of them have a bad case of the Daily Mail's, in essence they are utterly silly and very tribal which will never be of any benefit to cyclists. The reality is different governments have hammered motorists over the last few decades, there is very little doubt they will continue to do so as well

This is a joke, right? Do tell me one occassion on which motorists have been 'hammered'

Quote:

I personally passed my cycling proficiency test in the late 1980s which I did well enough at that they put me through to some sort of advanced secondary test which I didn't do as well at. 3 years ago I got my CBT done, last year I did my A2 motorbike tests and this year I decided to do my car tests all because I'll soon move away from London so need easy use of other forms of transport instead of just cycling.  I may even go for my lorry license next year just to continue to add to my license and open up more options.

 

I've seen plenty of people being stupid in all types of vehicles, there are no exceptions to this, to  the point that even walking seems to be beyond some people. Personally a few years ago on the way to work I was nearly knocked off 3 times in one morning with one car in traffic cutting across me while I was in the cycle lane without signaling or looking in his mirror, then a car reversed out of a drive way on to the main road and thus nearly into me and the third of that cycle ride to work involved me swerving to avoid being doored. 

 

At the end of the day besides all the whining and the fact criminal acts are still commited by users of other vehicles they are heavily regulated through laws to do with driver testing, vehicle safety tests (MOT), insurance, etc. while at the moment there are in reality none of these for cyclists or for the bicycles they use.

Those regulations work so well don't they.

Quote:

Now I'm not sure they need to change much right now but the growing miniority of bell ends need to be stopped by the community of cyclists and certainly not keep being excused by the community before the government deicdes it has to act, no one has ever liked regulation since it brings in unwanted restrictions and extra costs.

What 'community of cyclists' would that be? How do you imagine I can affect the behaviour of a cyclist at the other end of the country? Should I get on a sleeper, track him down and educate him? Do you propose the AA might educate all the drivers I see on mobiles?