"Accidental" ...

A case of "someone cocked it up" which means nobody is held accountable for the death of a cyclist:


"An inquest into the death of a cyclist who was hit by a lorry in Old Trafford has recorded a verdict of accidental death"


I shudder at the velvety, cushioned language in which the Police try to obfuscate what they reluctantly admit: that CCTV footage which would have been needed for a successful prosecution, was lost due to their actions (or lack of).


One should ask Andrea Leadsom whether she thinks her tinkering with the law in recent months will help address injustices like this.

Who are you calling feral?

I’m reading ‘The Bicycle Book’ by Bella Bathurst, and I’m loving it – not only because the content is interesting, but because the writing is so good and engaging.

Just one quibble: the chapter on ‘Feral Cyclists…’ – esp. the conversation with a bunch of London cabbies – seems to try a bit too hard to say ‘hands up, we cyclists have no great respect for the law’ and then goes on to try to justify the sin and gain sympathy from those we seem to ‘wrong’ with our cycling.

I would argue that it is unhelpful at best to single out a particular mode of transport when it comes to routine, habitual failure to follow the highway code. Take speed limits, for instance. In any kind of road, whatever the speed limit, you see people disregarding it – not always dangerously, but that’s not the point, is it? And how about traffic lights: how often do we see drivers speeding to ‘make it’ when the amber light shines? This is low-level flouting of the rules that those who engage in it will do without thinking – certainly without thinking they are doing anything other than ‘what everyone else does’. Add on top the real hooligans of the road – the ones who drive at silly speeds on urban roads, or jump the red light. Suddenly, it’s not just cyclists who appear ‘feral’, is it?

This house acknowledges...

Early day motion 1393 is a breath of fresh air - let's hope it succeeds.  It proposes to put the onus on motorists to prove their innocence in the event of a collision with a cyclist or pedestrian - a helpful measure!

Compare that with the (successful) efforts by Andrea Leadsom MP to introduce 'tougher penalties for cyclists   who kill" - even though the numbers of such unfortunate events are microscopic.  I entirely sympathise with the plight of the parents of the victims of the so-called "cyclist" in this case, and fully agree this individual should have gone to jail for what he did.

Ms Leadsom assures us that there was no political point-scoring in this.  Ms Leadsom is an honourable person.  However, as reported in the press this can seem like one of those campaigns aimed at the soft target of cyclists and cycling - who cause so few fatal incidents but are also a "hard to hear" minority, a fringe group against whom this legislation is easy to introduce.

The fact is, when it comes to fatalities on the road, injustice is visited on cyclists just like on any other group of road users.  The idea that somehow the law treats motorists more harshly is nonsense.  It would be far more helpful for people like Andrea Leadsom to look at good and bad road users than to attack the problem piecemeal, concentrating on a particular mode of transport (usually cyclists) first.

Which takes me back to Early day motion 1393.  Ms Leadsom has not signed it - I'll request that she does: let's see what happens.