quite right to... no matter what anyone on here wants to argue.. the cyclist involved FLED THE SCENE...in itself a crime...
good grief where on earth do you get THAT idea from? watch the video there is a cyclist in the foreground at the beginning and the cyclist involved in the accident is going at LEAST twice if not THREE times the speed... and appears to be going at approximately the SAME speed as the CARS going in the opposite direction....
I've already mentioned this - but he was arrested for leaving the scene of an accident. That law only applies to motorists (s 170, RTA 88), so either the police screwed up, or they know something we don't (e.g., the bike was illegally modified).Citation needed. Find the law please.
I don't think that's really true - it may be fairly close in the dry, but maybe not in the wet. (there is also a limit to how much a cyclist can brake without going over the handlebars. )and will brake more quickly.
I've already mentioned this - but he was arrested for leaving the scene of an accident. That law only applies to motorists (s 170, RTA 88), so either the police screwed up, or they know something we don't (e.g., the bike was illegally modified).
I've already mentioned this - but he was arrested for leaving the scene of an accident. That law only applies to motorists (s 170, RTA 88), so either the police screwed up, or they know something we don't (e.g., the bike was illegally modified).
I don't think that's really true - it may be fairly close in the dry, but maybe not in the wet. (there is also a limit to how much a cyclist can brake without going over the handlebars. )
I've already mentioned this - but he was arrested for leaving the scene of an accident. That law only applies to motorists (s 170, RTA 88), so either the police screwed up, or they know something we don't (e.g., the bike was illegally modified).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170 said:Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents.
[mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road [or other public place], an accident occurs by which—
(a)personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle]
They are if they have been modified and no longer meet the criteria for electric bikes. The bike was recovered the same day.Electric bikes are not classed as motorised vehicles under the law - has the bike been recovered?
The very next sentence...The Telegraph says “the 30-year-old was held on suspicion of causing bodily harm under Section 35 of the Offence Against Person Act, which covers incidents injuring persons by furious driving”
He was also arrested on suspicion of failing to stop and failing to report a collision.
No, "mechanically propelled" is taken to mean powered by some mechanism, not by a person.From what I can see, the wording was amended to "mechanically propelled vehicle" in 1991 so if that was the case, it would apply in this case as well wouldn't it?
Jailed for 18 months under a law intended for horse drawn carriages because there wasn't a suitable cycling law, so it's unsurprising there are calls for changes to cycling laws because of it.
From what I can see, the wording was amended to "mechanically propelled vehicle" in 1991 so if that was the case, it would apply in this case as well wouldn't it?
The very next sentence...
Why is a cyclist going the same speed as a car “unacceptably” fast? A cycle is a much less dangerous vehicle in general to pedestrians than a car, is more manoeuvrable, and will brake more quickly.
Why is a cyclist going the same speed as a car “unacceptably” fast? A cycle is a much less dangerous vehicle in general to pedestrians than a car, is more manoeuvrable, and will brake more quickly.
It unlikely to be the first time it has ever come up...That's odd, I didn't see that at all! Whoops. I'm wondering if the police have taken legal advice on what constitutes "mechanically propelled", or perhaps even hope to set a precedent.
Maybe, but we don't really know yet. It is also possible that the police made a mistake.So maybe we are talking about a moped (officially)? If that's the case then you might as well change the thread title to "woman dies following hit and run by moped rider".
Who cares what law it was? Clearly a law applied to the situation - so why go creating new ones just so they have "cycling" in them?
Getting a wild horse to tow a cart would be quite an achievement!Because a bike is not a wild animal with a cart on the back.
(On the other hand, if you don't want a bike to be found, dumping it in London seems a bit stupid... under the circumstances, that's practically guaranteeing that it'll be found and investigated by the police, even if they don't know who owns it. But perhaps someone acting in a state of panic might not think that rationally?)
Because a bike is not a wild animal with a cart on the back. I would expect the maximum sentence for a horse and cart offence to be more lenient than it should be for a cyclist due to a horse having a mind of its' own but a bike being under the complete control of the rider.
Getting a wild horse to tow a cart would be quite an achievement!
Whether or not you consider the horse to be wild doesn't change the fact it's an animal with a mind of it's own and can do unpredictable things.
I'm sure the judge will take this into account when determining the exact sentence.
If the law includes a maximum penalty then the judge can't exceed that. For example, failing to stop at the scene of an accident carries a maximum 6 month penalty but has no limit on a fine imposed. If the law is a couple hundred years old a maximum financial penalty may not be appropriate and it could include a permitted punishment which is now banned under another law.
Is there a specific issue with this particular offence, though? If so, please give examples of case law explaining where you believe the punishment was not adequate.
I would say much more quickly. If the average cyclist slams the brakes on at 30MPH they will simply loose control and come off the bike.A car will brake more quickly from 30mph than a bicycle, its greater weight and servo-assisted brakes will ensure that.
Given it was reported the law a cyclist was charged under was not intended for cyclists, I don't get why anyone should be against an update to the law to make it more appropriate for the type of vehicles on the roads in 2018. How often does the Data Protection Act get updated? And yet we're arguing about whether it's worth the effort to update a law intended for horse and carts.
wasn't the debate surrounding that case at the time about the fact that, as the cyclist had to be charged under archaic law he got what many considered a lenient sentence for killing someone due to his own negligence by riding a bike that was unroadworthy ie he'd disabled the braking system... whereas if he had been driving a car the judge would've been able to pass a much stiffer {though still inadequate} sentence for the same crime? IIRC even the judge passed comment on the ludicrousness of the situation.It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't intended for, there is no point wasting Parliamentary time changing a law that appears to have been effective. Do you have that case law to quote where it wasn't again?
wasn't the debate surrounding that case at the time about the fact that, as the cyclist had to be charged under archaic law he got what many considered a lenient sentence for killing someone due to his own negligence by riding a bike that was unroadworthy ie he'd disabled the braking system... whereas if he had been driving a car the judge would've been able to pass a much stiffer {though still inadequate} sentence for the same crime? IIRC even the judge passed comment on the ludicrousness of the situation.
As I said in an earlier post... laws and sentencing are reviewed all the time concerning all activities.. why should cyclists be immune from the same scrutiny from our law makers? Remember it was only 50 yrs or so ago that drink/ driving was made illegal and was done so against strong opposition from some quarters {probably mostly from those that like a few pints and can't be bothered to walk home!} would you suggest that it was wrong to pass those laws? or to review on a regular basis whether or not they are/ are not adequate for the task in hand?