Should Death by Dangerous Cycling Carry a Life Sentence? 

No, but they are statistically around 1000 times less likely to be dead.

Yes, and being less dead is clearly better than being medium or more dead. I learned that in medical school.

I wonder who amongst thats talking, has ever been hit by a bike going fast, cos I have. But thats not the main issue, the issue is about following the code of law and decent conduct on the road. And lycra lot don't do either. And that makes it incredibly dangerous for pedestrians. And I'm sick to the teeth of hearing the (very aggressive) 'victim' narrative from them, while they're the aggressors on the road!! Ask ANY car, bus, taxi, etc or pedestrian, partic those who have infirmity and need to be free to trust when they're safe to cross. There's laws, to keep everyone safe on the roads, and lycra lot break them about every 2 seconds, clearly believing the law applies to everyone else but them. That's the issue. Cycle properly (eg. not on all 4 sides of a vehicle, not weaving in and out of vehicles, half the time in blind spots therefore, ETC), and you WON'T GET ANY CYCLISTS KNOCKED OFF!!! Its about responsible cycling, following the law like the rest of road users, and cycling properly and thoughtfully. As against doing exactly what YOU want to do, regardless of ALL the other people sharing those roads, zebras, traffic lights, etc etc etc.

@@XelaMa Anti cycling nonsense.

Not anti cycling at all mate, decent cyclists no problem whatsoever, just the lycra code of cycling appallingly, selfishly and dangerously.

​@@wm4230Now you are being silly.

@@barbarahalkyard1901 It's a valid point.

All circumstances are different. It's not as simple as saying life for life.

What if someone crosses the road without looking? What I’m saying is that it’s just not that simple is it

I'm not sure such a case as death by deliveroo has occurred yet.

No, its men of a certain age, in lycra!!! (And even Chris Hoy said they look ridiculous if over the age of 20!)

@@user-fo9bv2mm1g How would anyone even know if it had?

@@nicholasnich7083 The Daily Mail would have told you about it.

@@XelaMa 99%+ of the pro peloton are over 20. Worry more about the 2000 deaths caused by drivers than the possibility of a 'mamil' causing a fatality.

That is what the children chained up in his basement say too.

You can’t cycle on motorways

What?? Cyclusts can't use motorways.😅

@@thehamster2301 their immune

😂😂😂😂

Who is asking for fewer bikes?

@@jujutrini8412 Many drivers.

Still though. If you do hurt someone through negligence, I think the penalty should be the same regardless of vehicle.

Imagine comparing injuries like that 🙄 fact is anyone using the road should use it correctly.

Real life? This is real life? Calm down señor cyclist

It's a pretty "real life problem", when its terrifying just to cross the road! And when elderly, disabled and blind people in particular, are liable to be killed every time they do, taking their lives into their hands each time.

Usual aggressive, mock defence, reaction. In real life of course, its "F... Off", every time. Shame on them all.

@@XelaMa well that’s with any vehicle or disability tbh there is risk with anything but arguing about stuff like this is kinda sad

@@XelaMa Mostly by cars and not cyclists though.

No one said only bicycles.

Yes, and he had illegal parties during covid lockdown. Using boris as a prop --- well, well.

It appears ax though my comment was not added. However I shall try again. To use johnson as a prop is really a bit off -- johnson infamously held drinking parties whilst others were locked down. Of course he denied any part of these parties.

@@Alexander-uj5pb The same people frothing over cyclists think Johnson would go for a pint with them. Most of them voted for him.

But negligence isnt an accident

Its not deliberate either.

14 years isn't life....

Its ridiculous If someone trips over your foot and their injuries are fatal would you expect to be jailed for life We’ve got to be logical

@@MrJohnnysevenyou’re right it’s 15-20 years Not very different is it And most people will only serve 10

Cyclists are perceived as left wing and easy targets to get thick people upset over in the culchur warz.

Cycling takes time so if you think someone is getting up an hour early to casually cycle to work whilst stopping to smell the roses is clearly unrealistic.

@@Peepsarestrange "I'm late for work! Oops! Just killed someone! Oh well. Two years max. Anyway gotta speed so I'm not late! Wheeeeeee!"

​@@xrzeropoint7989 clearly you don't cycle. If you did then you would know just how difficult maintaining 20 mph is.

Er yes. Have you not seen a bus / coach / truck which is limited to a certain top speed?

......and what about pedestrians that step out into the road (usually looking at their iPhones) and cause accidents?

So someone killed by a cycle is less dead than someone killed by a car?

Very dumb comment. Of course the weight matters. The proof being that in 2021, 1 pedestrian was killed as a result of dangerous cycling, in the same year 360 pedestrians were killed by cars.

No, we've lost all our legal rights to safety, courtesy of an unchecked, unaccountable lycra fraternity. The time for change and accountability is very overdue, so we can ALL feel safe on the roads!

A fair point, however if you cause a death through dangerous cycling you should get a life sentence.

Perhaps pedestrians should also be insured then. Thay used roads when crossing,they share cycle paths. Perhaps people walking with dogs shold pay extra for insurance. I know people tht hve been injured because of both pedestrians and dogs.

Bad driving that threatens more vulnerable users is what entitlement is.

@@daza3620 now perhaps we can understand what entitlements is. Pedestrians being insured will not negate the bad behaviour of many cylclists. Any fool without any safety concerns or roadcraft can can ride a bike and can do it quite legally. Yes, yes we know that many cyclist are very carefull and safe, but as is the case it is often the exception rather than the rule that causes problems. Why are car drivers insured and licenced, because thay can cause damage to people if they are careless and are liable to police charges. Cyclists have no insurance to cover any accident which may happen due to their negligence or carelessness. Cyclists should be seen to have a working knowledge of the highway code and cycle riding safety.

Probably because big angry people in suvs are tearing up the road and millions of cars parked all ovet the street so getting past them is extremely awkward

It won’t but you cyclists will be less arrogant, as you will be arrested!

@@KaKA-mt2ei Delusional, driver thought processes.

Oh we can do both buddy, what ya worried about? Maybe you are one of the problem cyclists?

@@nickbreen287 If you cannot accept the real problem is mass deaths caused by drivers, you are probably a potential killer in a car.

@@KaKA-mt2ei difference is cyclists know they can’t be prosecuted for speeding

Your logic is flawed. If this is true then a stiletto coming at you at 10 mph would do the same damage as an elephant coming at you at 10mph . You forgot to take into consideration the actual weight of the colliding object. So yes, a bike colliding with you would hurt, but a car doing the same speed would do more damage simply because of its weight

Thats what the UK needs, even more rules and licences.. You'll want a licence for running next

Hahaa good one - you seem to love the red tape ! Also the Netherlands doesn’t have cycle licensing, so you’re also just spouting drivel.

@@bbrs925 last time I was there they did

@@juliadove1006 what? They literally don’t. Tell me where I can find this licensing body. I’ll save you some time, it doesn’t exist.

@@bbrs925 I bow to your greater experience. But why do they have licence plates in the back?

There are already laws and regulations for cars. You have to take a test an everything.

​@@GromDarkwater so if you cycle you couldn't possibly have a car and passed that same test?

You aren't talking about cyclists you are talking about e bikes. Try cycling at 20 mph for 30 mins

@@godofcycling , normal bikes go at 40mph,

@@godofcycling if you are not breaking the speed limit then I can't understand your argument

@@godofcycling A normal bike will go over 40 mph

@@sasfflegionarmyy1990 Can you ride a bicycle at 40mph?

Try cycling at 20 mph for 30 mins and then you will know how ridiculous part of that comment was.

Not cyclists wearing helmets and the correct kit you haven't

@@godofcycling yes, with and without. But main culprits are without.

That's a fair point when you're penalizing someone for doing something _potentially_ dangerous. For example, you could argue that the penalty for skipping a red light in a car should be greater than the penalty for skipping a red light on a bicycle. But in the case where a person has been killed through, it's not really relevant.

​@@andybrice2711 do some basic research on people killed by bicycles and then cars and you'll see just how ridiculous that comment is. A death is a death but...

@@andybrice2711 of course it’s relevant. The standards and duties of care owed towards each other in criminal and civil laws like negligence are based on the likely outcomes. If I drive my car recklessly at 30mph or bicycle recklessly at 20mph - I’ve almost nigh on impossible forethought of killing someone on the bike. Whereas very possibly in a car. A law for death by dangerous cycling has to recognise that, which it now by implication doesn’t as it’s been brought in. A law to prosecute someone because they have been involved in an accident where someone has died, in this context, just to get some ‘justice’ and lay blame, doesn’t make it such that it is a right law.

We do pay into a system… that then builds them… general taxation. Why shouldn’t bikes be on the road? They were on the road before cars were? What you mean is “I don’t like slowing down for cyclists or overtaking them, because I’m lazy”. Grow up.

@@bbrs925 general taxation wasn't made for bike lanes anymore than it was made for go kart tracks. they need paid for via a different mechanism. You shouldn't be on the roads because you didn't pay for them, simple. If you want to be on them then pay road tax, yearly mot, mandatory insurance and licence plates exactly the same as other road users..... simples again. I said exactly what I mean, you "grow up" and read what I actually wrote and not read what you want it to read.

E bikes not cyclists. I cycle and have insurance. As for speed you go out and maintain 20 mph for 30 mins then you might have the first clue. If cyclists are going through red lights then you film and post the vid.

@@godofcycling I didn’t mention e bikes and cyclists know they can’t be prosecuted for speeding