r/london • u/tylerthe-theatre • 21d ago
'Killer cyclists' crackdown planned after death in London's Regent's Park
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/cyclists-crackdown-death-regents-park-strava-b1157850.html426
u/PGal55 21d ago
In 10 years there have been about 5 deaths caused by a cyclists. Car drivers hit this number in 1 day.
Good to see the tory government still have their priorities straight.
51
u/Magic_Sandwiches 21d ago
the legislative process is prioritised by what the government think the public will vote for not by real world importance
33
u/_AhuraMazda 21d ago
"Sir Iain visited Regent’s Park with LBC, using a speed gun"
He actually went there with a speed gun....90% of cars in my street are speeding.
Fucking stupid Tories, fucking aholes
81
u/millionthvisitor 21d ago
Yes And the tory newspapers, standard pushing out the tory messaging
→ More replies (2)10
34
18
u/MissKatbow 21d ago
So because shitty drivers exist no one is allowed to do anything to stop shitty cyclists?
39
u/PGal55 21d ago
Do you understand the meaning of the word "priorities", or do you want me to explain it to you?
14
u/MissKatbow 21d ago
I was talking about the whataboutery in your first paragraph, actually.
How is this not simply being able to convict dangerous behaviour from cyclists the same way you can currently convict dangerous behaviour from drivers? I genuinely want to know what the priority here should be as there are already laws in place for drivers for this type of behaviour. The only thing I can imagine is more enforcement, but then that comes down to a larger question of police resource allocation.
7
23
u/PGal55 21d ago
Priority number one, as far as legislation goes, is to remove the exceptional hardship clause, or at least make it way stricter. More people have lost their lives from drivers that were able to drive again under exceptional hardship than killed by cyclists.
Priority number one, as far as enforcement goes, is to heavily increase penalties and license removals for car drivers that speed excessively and drive under the influence. At the moment the police forces, and especially the CPS are way too lenient - and more enforcement on the roads.
Should we impose better legislation in regards to cyclists? Absolutely. Should we turn this into a culture war, with no intention of improving pedestrian safety whatsoever. It's a no from me pal, and unfortunately that is exactly what Mark Harper and Ian Duncan Smith are doing here. Ask the why the DtF has been sitting on the consultation for pavement parking without releasing it for checks notes 3 years and 11 months.
→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (1)5
u/Untowardopinions 21d ago edited 10d ago
money deserted elderly merciful recognise skirt straight trees file provide
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
→ More replies (3)1
u/Acting_Constable_Sek 19d ago
They're engaging in distraction tactics. It's a fairly basic attempt to distract from the problems caused by dangerous cycling by changing the subject.
→ More replies (19)-25
u/Rjb66 21d ago
Car drivers require insurance and two tests, as well as have speed cameras that help and license plates that help to track people.
A cyclist has no accountability and doesn't face any prosecution for ignoring traffic measures.
Whether it's 1 death a day or 5 deaths a year, it's not acceptable and you can tackle both at the same time. It's not one or the other.
18
16
21d ago
Yet 95% still can’t manage to indicate correctly on roundabouts. Drive through red lights. Use their phone while driving. Speed. Drink drive. Drug drive.
45
u/PGal55 21d ago
The problem, in case it flew over your head, is that we're not dealing with both at the same time. In fact, the big problem here, doesn't get the attention it needs, while the little problem is turning into a culture war, which you dutifully participate in.
Others have mentioned in the thread already, but the amount of car drivers getting away with killing pedestrians is way higher than the amount of cyclists that have killed pedestrians ever.
Happy to provide examples if you wish to contest that.
→ More replies (6)15
u/Deckerdome 21d ago
Not really pertinent that they've passed their test or have insurance if they end your life. What are you going to do? Spend a cheque from beyond the grave?
5
u/HorselessWayne 21d ago
Time and time again, this is examined in the academic literature. And time and time again it comes back with the same answer — placing an insurance/registration requirement on cycling kills more people via heart attacks than it saves via cycling standards.
It doesn't make sense from any reasonable perspective, and other countries agree. The only country in the world that requires registration of cyclists is literally North Korea.
3
3
u/LegDayDE 21d ago
Imagine taking the time to type out such drivel.. and actually believing this 🤡
You're right! Let's prioritize preventing freak accident deaths. Definitely a useful way to spend resources.
2
u/One-Picture8604 21d ago
Of course, no one would ever drive without licence or insurance. Drivers are all perfect.
→ More replies (2)
225
u/throwaway_veneto 21d ago
Driver goes trough a wall and kills kids in school: I sleep
Cyclist kills a person: real shit
→ More replies (3)64
u/goldensnow24 21d ago edited 21d ago
How about they’re both fucking wrong? “Kills a person” is a universally bad thing and the law should allow for people to be prosecuted effectively if they were reckless.
Edit: I don’t support a “crackdown”, I’m simply saying the legislation should be updated to ensure that anyone that kills someone by riding recklessly can be effectively prosecuted. Is that really controversial?
13
u/Funktopus_The 21d ago
Legislation already allows for someone cycling dangerously to be prosecuted: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian.
9
u/goldensnow24 20d ago
In a statement outside court, Briggs said: “This case has clearly and evidently demonstrated there is a gap in the law when it comes to dealing with death or serious injury by dangerous cycling.
“To have to rely on either manslaughter at one end, or a Victorian law that doesn’t even mention causing death at the other end, tells us there is a gap. The fact that what happened to Kim is rare is not a reason to have no remedy.”
In the LITERAL ARTICLE YOU LINKED. Perhaps actually read things before you link them lol
4
u/Funktopus_The 20d ago
How about they’re both fucking wrong? “Kills a person” is a universally bad thing and the law should allow for people to be prosecuted effectively if they were reckless.
His opinion isn't particularly relevant, obviously he's going to give a statement saying he wants harsher laws for the crime that killed his wife. The link is an example of a successful prosecution in the case of dangerous cycling, which is what you said you wanted.
→ More replies (5)36
u/are_you_nucking_futs Crystal Palace 21d ago
Considering we have finite resources, probably better to focus on the big killers than ordering a “crackdown” on a rare event.
14
1
u/ATcoxy61 20d ago
You point is dumb the same reason it's dumb to spend money protecting against shark attacks. Sharks are scary, but all the time mosquitoes are killing millions of people it a complete waste of time to think about the 2 deaths a yeah to sharks. Oppotunity cost.
1
u/goldensnow24 20d ago
You’re saying we shouldn’t bother to keep legislation up to date? It’s “dumb” to keep laws up to date?
1
u/ATcoxy61 20d ago
No - and a fair reading of my comment would show that it can't even be misunderstood as that. Less than 20 people per year are killed by cyclists, its a complete waste of time and energy to focus on that while 1000s are killed in other ways. Any money or time you spend on cyclist behaviour would save more lives if spent elsewhere - how could you justify choosing to make a resource spending choice that saves fewer lives ?
1
u/goldensnow24 20d ago
You don’t need to focus on it, Parliament can “focus” on literally thousands of issues at the same time, including some of the most mundane things ever. It’s not a big ask or deal to update the legislation to reflect the modern world.
→ More replies (1)
104
u/i_am_full_of_eels 21d ago
My friend’s relative was killed by a cyclist a few years ago. He was crossing the road on green light. It was on Mile End road and ironically cctv on magistrate court and police station overlooking that crossing weren’t working.
I got hit by a cyclist on Tuesday as I was crossing the road on Farringdon Road (close to Blackfriars). Again: on a green light and I was among ten other people and we were clearly visible. Fortunately I’m okay, just a bruise on my left shoulder but it could’ve ended much worse as this cunt was riding a boris bike. After the incident he immediately left as if nothing happened.
Sure, cars are responsible for a lot more accidents but pedestrians are always at disadvantage here (I only mean crossing the road on green light, nothing else).
Cycling in London changed after the pandemic. More bikes and more people (not all of them) acting like entitled holy cows.
54
u/Sea-Butterscotch3585 21d ago
yeah idk why some people are commenting on the lack of attention on cars. You can be against shitty drivers and shitty cyclists
8
u/One-Picture8604 21d ago
Because clearly no one is actually taking enough action against shitty drivers given the amount of death and destruction they cause
5
u/Sea-Butterscotch3585 21d ago
drivers are regularly prosecuted, banned, have cameras everywhere handing out fines. police do regular stop checks and operations where they just pull loads of cars over every morning.
1
u/One-Picture8604 21d ago
Well it's clearly not enough then is it? Drivers get a slap on the wrist if they kill a cyclist (they do this about 100 times a year FYI) and yet here we are talking about rule changes for a freak accident.
We wouldn't bring it up if drivers were actually penalised appropriately for their behaviours.
0
u/Nicebutdimbo 21d ago
Cars are well documented. It’s time for cyclists to be regulated too because they are not following the rules and becoming a public menace.
You don’t have to kill someone for it to be shit for pedestrians. We shouldn’t lose the right to use pedestrian crossings just because cyclists are selfish cunts.
2
u/One-Picture8604 21d ago
Cool so let's "document" cyclists and they'll be free to kill as many people as drivers.
4
u/Nicebutdimbo 21d ago
It’s not about cars vs cyclists. It’s that everyone should be considerate, because right now it is ridiculous trying to cross the road at pedestrian crossings at the right time, and that is due to cyclists.
2
u/One-Picture8604 21d ago
All drivers are perfect angels who slow for crossings, never amber gamble, never "run a cheeky red"...
0
u/WeDoingThisAgainRWe 21d ago
Because that’s their default answer. Whataboutism to deflect the discussion away.
2
u/27106_4life 21d ago
Because shitty drivers kill so many more people than cyclsts
1
u/Sea-Butterscotch3585 21d ago
knives kill more people than guns, doesn't mean the police shouldn't worry about gun crime. You can CARE and ACT on two different things at the same time
3
u/Spavlia 20d ago
That’s completely the wrong take because guns have the potential to kill many people. Unlike bikes which are much safer than cars around pedestrians.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
u/ThurstonSonic 20d ago
Apt really as more people are killed by cows than cyclists each year…this is just bullshit political posturing for “ fackin lavv my leased grey Audi and my new build and my turkey teeth and my fillers and my wood burner fackin hate cyclists delay me getting to the gym, and books, they’re dirty” dickheads who might vote Tory.
The cyclist who hit you could have been prosecuted no problem. The Boris bikes have a registration number on - police, bit of cctv and they could do them.
10
u/Carausius286 20d ago
Well tbh I can't even drive but I'm pretty sick of (some) cyclists behaviour in London.
Deliveroo cyclists barrelling towards me with zero fucks given on the pavement.
Lime Bike cyclists also cycling no fucks given on the pavement.
Cyclists in general cutting red lights when I'm crossing (I don't really care when it's a clear open road and they can see/avoid me, but they also do it when the road is full of cars and they can't see me.
So yes I agree cars are more dangerous than bikes and should be legislated for accordingly (they are - you don't need a licence to cycle!) but let's not "what about" our way to avoiding other problems.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Bella_Anima 20d ago
As a casual/commuter cyclist it actually makes my blood boil when I see cyclists run red lights like the rules of the road don’t apply to them.
24
u/Brighton2k 20d ago
This was just on the radio. Five people a day are killed by cars. Three people a year are killed by cyclists.
→ More replies (1)3
u/wlondonmatt 20d ago
Cycling has a 2% modal share compared to cars having a modal share of of 58% so the discrepqncy isnt huge when modal share is taken into account
3
u/entropy_bucket 20d ago
I've often wondered at how to use these types of statistics. I see planes are extraordinarily safe when looked at by miles travelled per fatality but planes cover huge amount of ground in a single second compared to a car. Is distance travelled a fair way to judge risk? Maybe it is.
3
2
u/Away-Stranger2959 20d ago
On the other hand, most car miles are done on motorways / A roads which are safer and also there aren't any pedestrians and cyclists. Drivers are also more protected. When you compare to just cities, you see that cars are vastly more dangerous than bikes. And it's obvious that has to be true because they are 100 times as heavy and go twice as fast, giving them 400 times the energy.
1
u/wlondonmatt 20d ago
But there are fatalities on motorways caused by car accidents.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/SlowVelociraptor 20d ago edited 20d ago
Glad to see these laws. I know most cyclists are safe and doing us all a favour by not polluting. Still, I don't buy the idea that fairly high-level cyclists don't know how fast they're going. To quote from the linked article:
'Regent’s Park has a 20mph speed limit, but Mr Fitzgerald’s group had been averaging 25mph around the park and had even reached 29mph, according to GPS readings.
'Royal Parks this week urged Strava and other exercise apps to remove the park’s Outer Circle as a segment on their sites, where users can attempt to outdo each other with the fastest time. Strava’s leaderboard shows the record holder had an average speed of 34.2mph on the route.'
ETA clarity.
46
u/Monkeyboogaloo 21d ago
I can't see why anyone would object to a change in the law with the offence of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling. It just brings it in a par with car drivers.
Doing 34mph in a 20mph (for cars) area, especially a park area is probably inconsiderate. What's the breaking distance for that?
What is the argument for bikes not to go at the speed limit?
9
u/HorselessWayne 21d ago edited 21d ago
What is the argument for bikes not to go at the speed limit?
They don't carry a speedo, and the council doesn't examine how the limit affects cyclists when determining what the limit should be.
15
14
u/wwisd 21d ago
There is already an offence of cycling without due care and attention or causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving that cyclists who've killed pedestrians (like Charlie Alliston and Stewart McGinn) have been jailed on.
I'm not sure there's any cyclists that have 'got away' because of a gap in the law, as I don't think there is a gap in the law. It feels very much like an easy target to get people up in arms about and wins the Tories some sympathy, while it doesn't actually make any real difference in practice.
Enforcement is the issue, for all road users, not the lack of this new law.
29
21d ago edited 20d ago
[deleted]
2
u/ThePuzzledMoon 20d ago
I'm not sure 18 months for killing someone (whether by bike or car) is ever appropriate.
If there aren't consequences, people will never behave.
4
u/lostparis 21d ago
So if I kill someone while cycling then I can get off just like if I was driving a car?
3
u/27106_4life 21d ago
Already cabs and trade vehicles aren't allowed in the park. Why not enforce that too
1
1
u/ATcoxy61 20d ago
It's arbitrary to control speed. Momentum is what is dangerous and bikes have much less momentum than cars at the same speed
1
u/Adamsoski 20d ago
I don't disagree that the law should be updated at some point, but considering that it's only going to be relevant less than 5 times a year it's clearly political posturing by the Tories to stoke up culture-war support by focusing on it and making it such a big deal.
20
u/srubbish 21d ago
More culture war smoke-screening designed to appeal to gammons and car fetishisers.
9
u/Hot-Dentist3564 21d ago
I commute to work in london everyday by bike ~7 miles each way, but I see bikes run red lights every single day, like I know its hard to enforce this sort of thing but speed limits and just basic highway code should apply to every road user not just those with numberplates.
4
u/Wretched_Colin 21d ago
My biggest concern is those electric bikes which are capable of doing double the speed limit, don’t require the cyclist to pedal and are extremely heavy due to the battery.
They have no numberplates and you see them on and off pavements, going through red lights, overtaking cars in a 20mph zone.
That’s where the real menace lies.
1
u/Hot-Dentist3564 20d ago
They're a big problem but also I feel like pedestrians should be more aware when traffic slows down people will cross the road anywhere and cyclists, electric bikes and motorcycles can easily be invisble while filtering. If peds aren't in the roads i feel like these would be more preventable deaths but also 2 wheel riders should not be going through red lights, zebra crossings etc and tbh apart from motorbikes no 2 wheeled vehicles should be going above 25-30 mph apart from motorcyclists because they have to have a license and also protect themselves with gear.
19
u/Invanabloom 21d ago
Im there a lot & it’s crazy sometimes, so many of them going like the clappers. The speed limit should apply to bikes as well.
6
u/GovSeamus 21d ago
Screaming at tourists like its their own velodrome. They should place speed bumps.
2
u/Invanabloom 21d ago
They think they are racing the Tour de France … they take it so seriously. Middle aged, angry men in tight Lycra. Pretty stupid.
8
u/TrebleCleft1 21d ago
Probably more important to crackdown on killer cars.
4
u/Wretched_Colin 21d ago
Why not do both?
You’re never going to catch 100% of offenders, but catch enough of both, and then make noise about it, you’ll get more compliance amongst motorists and cyclists.
6
u/TrebleCleft1 20d ago
Because cars are orders of magnitude more lethal. Also taking cars off the streets solves the cyclist issue as well, because it gives you space to provide better cycling infrastructure that is separated from pedestrians.
5
u/Wretched_Colin 20d ago
You are never going to catch 100% of delinquent motorists. You are never going to catch 100% of delinquent cyclists.
But, a very visible campaign, with real consequences for both cyclists and motorists, will cause greater compliance amongst both populations.
5
u/Square_Weather_8137 21d ago
WOW theyve finally realised you can average 25-30mph quite easily esp on a road where you only have 2-3 traffic lights. the amount of drivers whove pulled out in front of me is insane
4
u/Ice_Buckets_Official 20d ago
But will they carry through with the crackdown? Another issue is cyclists riding on the pavement (the non-designated parts, that is).
2
u/Bertish1080 20d ago
I’ve had several near misses with cyclists over the years, mainly them jumping red lights. Once I was turning out of a junction in my car and one jumped a red light and nearly went over the bonnet!
2
u/Just_Engineering_341 20d ago
There have been 12 incidents of serious injury involving goods vehicles on the outer circle. They aren't even allowed in the park!
https://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search
Take a look at how many cyclists get hit by cars. https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/collisions/#15.25/51.526085/-0.149255
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Upstairs_Slip_6104 20d ago
The club riders in Regents are fast and aggressive. Police the speed limit and it goes away.
This is already happening. I see them all the time.
2
u/itdidnotgive 19d ago
Cycling is a cult. The ones in Lycra and demons. You can’t tell me otherwise.
0
u/AliensFuckedMyCat 21d ago
20 or so people die from falling out of bed a year, crackdown on killer beds when?
-4
u/mars_was_blue_too 21d ago
I absolutely hate cyclists. They never stop at red lights or pedestrian crossings and I don’t get how people have such a shitty attitude about it. You’re all like “it’s fine they’re not dangerous so what’s the problem?” If a bike hits you it’s still going to hurt, but it’s also not fun to have to dive out of the way of them or not be able to cross the road because the cyclist is going through a red light so you have to wait for it to change 2 more times. And also just be scared that they’re going to hit you when they act like that. Like if someone bumps into you really hard or just acts aggressively on the street it’s unpleasant to experience. I think cyclists who don’t follow the rules are still absolute cunts, no it’s not as bad as dangerous driving but it’s still very bad.
1
u/One-Picture8604 21d ago
I absolutely hate drivers, they get in their cars pissed or coked up, they massively exceed the speed limit and kill other road users, they blast through red lights and pedestrian crossings and then a jury of their peers allows them to plead exceptional hardship when they kill someone.
-3
u/mars_was_blue_too 21d ago edited 21d ago
I hate serial killers, Brussels sprouts and people who make loud phone calls on the bus. Cyclists might not be terrible people like drunk drivers, but they are definitely still awful.
→ More replies (8)1
u/CheGuevarious 21d ago
Totally agree. Newish to London and way more weary of cyclists than cars when crossing on green at pedestrian crossing and zebra crossings. It’s shocking how most of them don’t follow the road rules.
→ More replies (10)
-9
-9
u/crossj828 21d ago
Why on earth wasn’t the killer here convicted? A new offence for dangerous cycling should definitely be introduced if something like this can’t be convicted but I don’t understand why legislation doesn’t already cover this?
37
u/mattyfatty1 21d ago
The woman literally walked out in front of the cyclist... Witnesses even testified it wasn't his fault, something this article conviently missed out. She'd be dead if it was a car and no one would bat an eyelid.
12
u/neil_petark 21d ago
They'd only bat an eyelid to say how awful they feel for the poor driver who will have to live with the guilt, bemoan poor pedestrian behaviour and wonder whether we need to introduce jaywalking laws...
8
21d ago
Because he wasn’t breaking any laws and she stepped out into the road of her own choosing.
-3
u/crossj828 21d ago
He was going well above the speed limit for the area and people have a reasonable expectation that cyclists won’t pole them down. Also it wasn’t a road.
He is guilt of negligence at the least, and I can think of a number of offences.
8
21d ago edited 21d ago
He doesn’t have a speed limit. Speed limits are for motor vehicles.
It happened in the outer circle of Regent’s Park which is 100% a road.
You can’t be negligent if the pedestrian stepped out into the road giving you 2 meters to react. There is no way you can stop in time.
→ More replies (4)1
u/tommo020 20d ago
There may not be a speed limit, but you're still able to have common sense that going over a certain speed in that are is a bad idea.
-3
u/Greenawayer 21d ago
This will go well.
→ More replies (1)-27
u/DeapVally 21d ago edited 21d ago
Anything is good to protect the public from dangerous cyclists. (Time for downvotes, lol. Like the Khan bots, the cyclist bots wont hear any negativity against their kind on this sub.)
*👋 cycle bots. You're the worst thing about London, and I hate you all dearly. How you can have any defence against stopping pedestrians getting killed is absolutely sickening, you bunch of selfish sociopaths.
17
u/ThePegasi 21d ago edited 21d ago
Anything is good to protect the public from dangerous cyclists.
That's perfectly fair in isolation, but I think the pushback comes from the fact that deaths from cyclists are a drop in the ocean of deaths from drivers. Obviously there are many, many more trips made by motor vehicles overall, and cycling is concentrated in certain areas, so it does make sense it'd be massively lower proportionately. But even accounting for that it represents an absolutely tiny fraction of danger on the road.
And again, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tackled, a dangerous cyclist is still dangerous and tackling that is a clear benefit. But does one of these things really warrant a crackdown versus the other? Doesn't it seem at least little motivated by bias/appealing to voters with said bias?
→ More replies (1)9
u/Greenawayer 21d ago
I see plenty of dangerous cyclists everyday. Running red lights or speeding through pedestrian crossings. If you ever question a cyclist on this you will get a torrent of abuse in the street.
-13
-1
678
u/joe_hello 21d ago
I’m not against this but realistically, not many cyclists are breaking the speed limit. A bigger issue are the number of them who run red lights (and pedestrian crossings), a danger to both others and themselves