Seems like the US right wing anti cyclist lobby has spread it's wings and come across the 'Pond'. Thank goodness these bills hardly ever get a second reading.

>>She cited the case of 17-year-old Rhiannon Bennett, who was killed by a cyclist who mounted the pavement. The cyclist was fined £2,200 but received no prison sentence.

I thought it hadn't been shown that he was on the pavement in this caae, and that it was more likely that he wasn't?

Anyway, I think the CTC have it right. I've no problem with cyclists being held to account for their actions same as drivers, but bringing in a special law is ridiculous when people are killed in massively greater numbers by motorists who get off even more lightly.

the idea of this bill is just as foolish as the idea of making all cyclists register their bikes and have license plates. Granted people should pay for their crimes and those punishments should be fair, but surely the government should tackle illegal road users in cars and lorries before criminalising cycling. It seems with proposed laws like these the majority are made to pay for the minorities mistakes, when the fairer response would be to improve those that are causing the hazard in the first place.

How about we get decent sentances for those who kill in motor vehicles before turning the spotlight on the more vulnerable road users?

Bloody ridiculous imho.

From what I recall of the Rhiannon Bennett case, her and a bunch of her mates had been out getting drunk whilst under aged and then stood in the road when they saw the cyclist coming to try to stop him from passing. The cyclist tried to weave around them shouting 'Get out of the way, I'm not stopping', Bennett then moved directly into his path, there was a collision and she hit her head on the kerb. Some of her mates tried to cook up a story saying the cyclist had been on the pavement but this was later retracted. After the collision the only one who tried to resuscitate the girl was the cyclist...

Given that careless pedestrians kill more cyclists than do 'pavement cyclists' perhaps stepping into the road without looking and into the path of a cyclist needs to be dealt with by jail sentences...

Thanks Bernie for the real story,

That sounds right - I have had pedestrians (almost always young people and often drunk) jump out at me, try and scare me, spit at me, shout at me, try and push me and numerous other incidents including playing chicken with me. Like many young people they do not realize the seriousness of what they are doing and the possible outcome and they frequently mistake how fast I am going as I quit often make speeds of up to 25mph.

There needs to be a bill and laws that are prosecuted that target pedestrians who endanger the lives of cyclists as well as their own life.

The problem with these crazies that promotes such anti cycling laws is that they live in fairy land and have no idea about the real world and the real risks that are out there. This is just some really stupid MP trying to get into the papers and make a name for themselves and have a few minutes in the spotlight. We have an economy that is failing,unemployment that is approaching 3 million, inflation that is over 5% and an outlook that is dreadfull with bankers and capitalists paying no taxes. Our standard of life is falling like a lead balloon, oil prices are at highest extreme price, wars are being started, again, with no long term plans and this is the sort of bill they can come up with. I think we're doomed.

Tom - ranting again

"We should just imagine what would happen if a motorist drove onto a pavement and killed a teenager. If the driver had only walked away with a fine, there would have been a national outcry."

errrr, that IS what happens. They get prosecuted for losing control of the vehical, and not manslaughter. That's exactly what's wrong with the current system. It always sympathises with the 'inconvenience' that other road users place on car drivers and assumes anyone 'stupid' enough to cycle on the road has put themselves at risk...

well look, one person got *perhaps* a lighter sentence than they should have back in 2009 (iirc, the only death of a pedestrian involving a cyclist in the UK in that year) then no cyclists whatsoever are involved in pedestrian fatalities in the following year while >400 peds and >30 cyclists die in accidents involving cars *each* year and she's wasting our time with this?

She's just p*ssed because bikes get in the way of her 4x4 / jag on the way home in the evenings. nvm, she'll get over it.

Can't count the amount of time's I've been put in danger by idiot pedestrians.

I'm not saying every cyclist is a saint, but more often than not, they're more self-aware and responsible than the average pedestrian.

Maybe instead of looking for scapegoats all the time, maybe these MPs should put some effort into undoing their (or their predecessors) mistakes with the economy etc.

Maybe she should commute by bike for a year and see if she still feels the same.

Have a heart for the family who lost a child and comment accordingly as I am sure they will read these comments. Depsite the comments above the cyclist was convicted of dangerous cycling ie he was cycling dangerously and the court had all the facts at their disposal unlike BikingBernie. The MP is clearly trying to give the parents some comfort that something positive will come out of her death and is being a good constituency MP. If one of my kids was knocked down and killed by a driver who was controlling their vehicle in a dangerous manner I can rightly expect the driver to receive a substantial punishment in law. It is clearly right for a cyclist controlling their vehicle in a dangerous dangerous manner and who is proven to have killed someone by that means to expect the same.punishment. Whether cyclists are more vulnerable than car drivers to being hurt or killed is irrelevant. Its best not to muddle the two issues.

My condolences to Rhiannons parents

You are of course right devbrix.

However there are two areas I regularly cycle through on my commute or for work in Southampton. If a group of teens stepped off the pavement or tried to block my route I'd probably try to get around them or pick a gap. I'm sure most of us who have urban commutes in cities could easily think of several areas like this.

As for the bill. I think as a daily commuter by bike you are daft if you blatantly break laws, or don't have working lights and flourescent / reflective bits.

Weirdly I almost got done some weeks ago by a prius on its hybrid drive - it was the tyre noise that made me aware of it about 3 feet from by back wheel. Heart rate went through the roof in about a millisecond.

Of course any death is a tragedy, but had a motor vehicle been involved in the death of Rhiannon Bennett, I very much doubt the driver would have even been prosecuted. Facts accepted by the courts included the following. The rider was doing no more than 17 Mph. Bennett was in the roadway and then moved into the cyclist's path as he tried to ride around her. The cyclist shouted a warning to the girl before the collision. Despite been just 17 the girl had drunk several cans of beer just before the incident. The only person to help the girl after the collision was the cyclist who tended to her and put her into the recovery position until the ambulance arrived.

Now translate that into a similar situation involving a driver. Would they have been prosecuted? Not on your life. The reason being that motoring offences are usually judged by a jury of motorists all overseen by another motorist wearing a wig, which is probabaly also the reason why this cyclist was found guilty of 'dangerous cycling' rather than it been accepted that he was simply 'careless' or 'made a bad judgement call'.

I am not saying that the cyclist was without fault, but if this cyclist should have gone to jail, so should the majority of drivers who kill someone, even if they hit someone who is 'playing chicken' with them after a few beers, ignores a warning toot on the horn and the driver is going no more than 17 Mph...

My condolences go to ALL the people that have died as a result of traffic accidents and especially all the cyclists and pedestrians that have died as a results of pedestrians and other vehicles who have not taken due care and attention. My experience has been that I have almost been killed at least twice as the results of drunk pedestrians playing on the roads!

We all die! Life is a tragedy. Just because somebody dies does not mean we have to hide from the facts. Most of the comments here are quite sensible. Importantly, courts do not always work. Facts do not always get uncovered, cases have bias. Cases rarely and frequently do NOT have 'all the facts'. It is often the case that those who have the best lawyers wins and lawyers cost money. As a result, cultural bias and bigotry effect the outcome of many court cases. Having sat on several juries I can only say I was shocked at the bigotry I feel I was subjected to in the jury room.

The point is that any new laws will fit into the current culture that sees cyclists as second class citizens and they will then be treated by the law as such.

It is vital we have a real debate and if any facts are known they should be put in the public domain. It is my experience that this also is rarely the case when it comes to cultural baggage when hearsay and whispers rule. The point has been made again and again that are very few death as a result of cyclists bad cycling - unlike other vehicles. Laws should reflect risk and, in my opinion, the MP that put this forward is a victim of ego and local public pressure and should be focussing on more serious (which sadly there are plenty of).

My condolences of course go out to to Rhiannons parents - it ALSO goes to all those that lost somebody to traffic accidents TODAY that didn't make the headlines because it was just another car or truck hitting another pedestrian or cyclist and it was just accepted!

Tom - ranting again

This woman wos her name - Loathsome is talking out of her behind. She obviously understands diddly squat about which road users are doing all the killing. Start properly punishing drivers who maim and kill. In the two years that one person dies from death by cyclist, motons will have killed approximately 4,400, yes - FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED PEOPLE. In my books that's a frikin' massacre but there is NEVER an outcry. One cyclist is almost forced off his bike by some drunk ASBO kids and one of them tragically dies when he collides with them and a stupid MP calls for ALL cyclists to be punished severely! This woman is a loon, a monster raving party loon. Since when was any moton EVER fined £2,200? Never! They typically get a £200 fine for knocking down and killing a ped or a cyclist down and a slap on the wrist or get they claim SMIDSY or they fainted at the wheel and get off Scot frikin' free.

This Loathsome woman is definitely deluded. Mad as a marching March hare.

Leadsom is not 'mad', just exhibiting typical Right-wing Authoritarian thinking.

In her world view motorists, who represent the social norm, are an 'in-group', and the deviant behaviour of motorists is regarded as not justifying any actions that would affect motorists as whole. In fact, the enforcement of traffic laws that affect drivers is likely to be regarded as amounting to the 'persecution of the beleaguered motorist'. On the other hand cyclists are regarded as being an 'out group' who pose a challenge to the (motoring) social norm, and as such as deserving harsh punishments and 'strict discipline', with any deviant behaviour on the part of an individual cyclist being held to be representative of all cyclists.

The Transport Research Laboratory published a report called 'Drivers' perceptions of cyclists' that highlighted just how cyclists are treated as being an 'out group' in the UK, noting that cyclists are low down on most driver's 'road user hierarchy', and as such are treated with less care and consideration than they could be. This prejudice also extends to the way the law and the courts deal with cyclists, both as victims of road crime and when they break the law themselves.

P.s. William Storr, writing in The Observer of 4 June 2006, summarised the findings of Drivers' perceptions of cyclists as follows:

'A recent report for the government commissioned by the Transport Research Foundation found that drivers treat cyclists as 'out-group'. According to social-identity theory, this means that there is a multi-forked bias against us, which takes the form of that pernicious trident of hate - discrimination, stereotyping and prejudice.

So, in the head of a typical driver, subconsciously and automatically, things like these happen: the behaviour of the worst cyclist is used to judge them all; any cash the council visibly spends on them seems maddeningly unfair; any accident is the cyclist's fault; when making a decision, the motorist puts the needs of other motorists first; any behaviour at all that is 'different' to the driver's own is wrong. And so on. These are precisely the same primeval mental sparks that lead to football hooliganism, gang warfare and racism. Provocative and hateful newspaper reports about 'two-wheeled terrorists' merely stir up tribalism - basic, brutal and bad. It's the most dangerous and atrocious human impulse there is.'

@BikingBernie

A very interesting report. It can be downloaden here for free (registration required though):

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_drivers_perceptions_of_cyclists.htm

At best it might open up a debate about equal sentencing across the board but I agree it is utterly pointless - isn’t cycling dangerously already illegal? What next an anti-theft bill? How about a ban on illegal drugs?

Honestly, is every side of the road user debate 5 years old? It's descending into my Dad's bigger than your Dad type of debate. And everyone is at fault! Let's have a bit of tolerance and understanding here!

I think this motion may have more importance in general opinion toward cyclists, than in law evolution.

This motion means clearly that cyclists are not handled as firmly as other road users. CTC may have shown that it is not true, but this (wrong) point of view may remain as a fact in public opinion. And arguing that it is not a priority to strengthen law againts cyclists, just gives weight to this feeling of not equality.

I think it boils down to this, anything seen as rare gets treated more harshly.

Women who murder get treated harsher than men who kill as it is a less common occurrence.

This is the whole trouble with sentencing, the details of person accused are taken into account too much. If you're a celebrity you tend to get off lightly for instance.

Car related deaths are so commonplace that they just don't get punished anywhere near as much as they should be. Cyclists running people down is very rare and so it gets punished very harshly.

gilesjuk wrote:

"I think it boils down to this, anything seen as rare gets treated more harshly."

I would like to see where you got the evidence for this claim, as it does not seem to fit in with what I have read on the topic. Generally, the more common a 'problem' is perceived to be the more harshly it is dealt with by the law. Just think of the way the police have often applied 'stop and search' laws in a way that treats all young black men as being potential drug dealers.

In addition, Geoffrey Stephenson's book 'The Psychology of Criminal Justice' points out that, in part because they commit fewer crimes than men, the criminal justice system tends to treat women in a preferential manner, with it often being assumed that they are not fully responsible for what they do, or have psychiatric or social problem which account for their behaviour. The basic rule is that, whilst men are responsible for their actions, things ‘happen to’ women.

Motoring crime is the exception largely because the power of the motoring lobby is such that effective law enforcement has become impossible, with a form of 'motoring mob rule' having long been the norm. As J.S. Dean put it in his classic 1947 book 'Murder most foul: a study of the road deaths problem':

"The trouble with the facts about the law-breaking of the motorists and the motor interests is that there are too many: it is difficult even to grasp them. In fact, the position has long since passed far beyond the limits of ordinary law-breaking and become an exhibition of national degeneracy."

P.s jilesjuk.

Following your reasoning, if fatalities due to to collisions with cyclists became commonplace, nobody, perhaps not even The Daily Mail, would bat an eyelid. I think we all know that the real response would be a higher than ever level of anti-cyclist hysteria, rapidly followed by the banning of cycling...

Does any one know if she cycles

Roadies need to start riding in single file if they want to reduce how many of them get squashed.

Roadies, at least where I live, rarely ride in more than single file. Perhaps you have an unjustified, all-reaching opinion that all road cyclists ride in more than single file and deserve to be hated?

@tywin1

The highway code says don't cycle more than two abreast so two is ok.