I've never understood why the equivalent offence of "causing death by dangerous driving" exists when "manslaughter" already exists - and could presumably be applied in the vanishingly small number of cases where a cyclist kills a pedestrian and where culpability and recklessness are unambiguous.
Although what a motorist has to do do get convicted of causing death by dangerous driving seems unclear - I'm always reminded of this case, where it was demonstrated that the drivier wasn;t looking where he was going for *at least 9 seconds*. Careless driving, no jail time, banned for 18 months.
Plus you have all the mitigations: were you wearing a helmet/high vis clothing/had a light on etc. But all credit to the police and CPS who were superb in my case.
That’s just the sensationalist headline/political noise though isn’t it?
The current maximum tariff for death by dangerous driving is life, so it’s making it consistent - even though it’ll be unlikely to be used, as is the case for the driving offence.
Of course it is, and therein lies the problem. A few less sensationalist headlines might actually make the roads safer for cyclists. There are already too many people out there who appear to regard cyclists as fair game without fanning the flames by suggesting cyclists need cracking down on.
It’s depressing to see Labour ministers still going down the “scourge of out of control cyclists” route. I was in Manchester a couple of months ago and illegal ebikes and red light running were common but easier to introduce new legislation than enforce the existing law. Performative politics.
Comments
The current maximum tariff for death by dangerous driving is life, so it’s making it consistent - even though it’ll be unlikely to be used, as is the case for the driving offence.