Maybe they just think they would be more protected with the bear than a man in the woods
Very much the opposite. If you look on TikTok etc at the meme it is clear that women in general and young women in particular fear attack from unknown men more than they fear bears.
This may well be not realistic, but on forums like this that are male dominated it is easy to miss how many women feel their lives are restricted by the presence of men and the contant fear of this, with the implied threat of sexual violence
As a non drinker I have been on so many girls' night out, it truly is scary what they have to do to keep safe.
I was designated drinks watcher when they went to the bogs or outside for a cig because getting spiked is something that is real.
Never accept a drink from a stranger etc.
I've seen how unsubtle some males can be when they think they're God's gift to women.
Men are disgusting. Sorry.
The abuse I have received (including online here) is quite frankly appalling.
The front page of the I shows what’s likely to happen with the new Tory proposals on alleged “ sick note “ culture !
Untrained pencil pushers making decisions based on targets and the likely devastating consequences. All so this cesspit government can get arse licking headlines from the Daily Mail and DE .
The public should be reminded that one day they may also need that “ sick note “ .
Fuck landlords! That’s convinced me to vote Labour.
'Rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing,'
Exactly as I predicted in a thread a few days ago. I *despise* landlords, but all this means is more pain for tenants. Simple supply and demand.
And before anyone comes back with the "good, more people can own their own place" argument, that's not much comfort to those who are geograpically mobile, or unable to afford their own place or a deposit to save up for one.
We have already seen that rent controls don't work - look at Scotland.
Problem is the only fix is to build x million new homes and as I pointed out on Twitter in a chat with Dave Herdson earlier - we only just about have the capacity to build the houses we currently build we definitely don't have the skillset to increase that by 10% let alone the 150-200% we require...
And if we want lower rents - we need an awful lot of houses built...
The barrier to housing construction isn't labour, its planning controls.
Japan is a country with a much tighter labour market than us and they manage more housing builds than we do. Because planning isn't a problem there.
Fix the problem, houses will be built. Whinging about labour is just an excuse by NIMBYs who don't want the real problem fixed.
Um, the reason why I'm saying that labour is a problem is because i'm currently working at a major UK housebuilder in a position that means I really do hear about issues..
When I say they can't get staff it's because that is what I'm hearing on an hourly basis - and paying more won't solve the issue, the issue is we don't have the skills and we aren't training people up...
I've heard similar - we have an increasing under-employment problem. Put simply, if you have 20 people apply for 5 jobs you have an unemployment problem if 5 people apply for 5 jobs you have full employment, if 1 person applies for 5 jobs you have an under-employment problem.
I'm hearing this is serious in local Government with vacancies running at 20%+ in some areas.
It's not a skills problem - those with the skills have the work, there just aren't enough of them.
All I'm hearing is some who think cajoling the retired and pensioners into work by claiming some sort of civic obligation could be the answer - that's absurd. There is a pool of employees among carers who can only do limited hours but we need companies and organisations to think more flexibly. I'd also look at the unemployment rate among disabled people and ask if there's not more we can do to bring some of those individuals into work.
I'm going to say the same thing here. Employers, including the government, need to be more willing to sponsor the on-the-job training and upskilling of its workforce.
This becoming a more standard way of operating would help improve the productivity of our existing workforce, rather than every Tom, Dick and Harry demanding that they can recruit from overseas if there's a shortage of people fully trained.
But investment in operations is Evul!
Plus the workforce in the building trade has been badly treated for many years.
Getting them to pay for courses won’t work. And the usual scumbags have already turned the loans-for-training-paid-off-by-working into scams.
Since no one is directly employed and you can’t tie people to an employer in return for training, anyway, how should the training be structured?
I think it has to be tackled from the quality of provision side.
I'm not an expert on the sector, but if
1) There's planning reform and investment to facilitate a bit increase in housebuilding opportunities over the long-term
2) There's the ability for homebuilders make an increase in profits by increasing the number of homes they build
... Then there must be a way to get homebuilders to train more people to do the work. If there's not, it's a sign of market failure and the government should either reform whatever labour market arbitrage is holding it back, or create a government-backed competitor that does the job for them to add to competition.
The entire economy has been trained to believe in a right to cheap, ready trained workers.
There are businesses betting that Labour will open the taps, and get rates for skilled workers back down to minimum wage.
That’s the mentality.
Yep, British companies are bad employers.
Time that workers got more rights.
American companies are better employers.
I'd agree with that from experience. The view was if you are working hard and earning lots of money you must be making us lots of money. Mind you it also lead to cheating to meet bonus related KPis and there was no rubbish like executive company cars, each manager had access to branch vans. Mind you they were ruthless, you were only as good as your last month's performance, the previous five or ten years counted for nothing.
When the British arm was spun off to being British owned, caps on commissions were put in place. Cheating was used as the justification, nonetheless the entrepreneurial spirit died. When operatives reached their limits they didn't go that extra mile. In the American days drivers would be out to six or seven in the evening to smash through their personal targets, now the vans can be all back by two O' clock.
After three polls with 20+ leads for Labour and each of them showing near-extinction level events for the Conservatives, I suspect nerves will be clamed by the Opinium this weekend which should show a Labour lead below 20 points but we'll see.
Last Opinium 24-40.
Peter Kelner revealed in a piece in Prospect how Opinium calculate the swingback, a straightforward -3 Labour +3 Conservative on what research told. At what point during proceedings is it deemed so close to election, historical Swingback has happened, in part at least?
The actual closing on the gap can be through Reform melting back to Con, something that is already happening since local election, but largely disguised by Labours recent uptick.
My guess is Lab 41-26 Con. The labour uptick + the Ref slide back into Con. and we will have to explain on PB yet again, its swing-back manipulated so not 15 but really 21 23-44.
Fuck landlords! That’s convinced me to vote Labour.
'Rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing,'
Exactly as I predicted in a thread a few days ago. I *despise* landlords, but all this means is more pain for tenants. Simple supply and demand.
And before anyone comes back with the "good, more people can own their own place" argument, that's not much comfort to those who are geograpically mobile, or unable to afford their own place or a deposit to save up for one.
We have already seen that rent controls don't work - look at Scotland.
Problem is the only fix is to build x million new homes and as I pointed out on Twitter in a chat with Dave Herdson earlier - we only just about have the capacity to build the houses we currently build we definitely don't have the skillset to increase that by 10% let alone the 150-200% we require...
And if we want lower rents - we need an awful lot of houses built...
The barrier to housing construction isn't labour, its planning controls.
Japan is a country with a much tighter labour market than us and they manage more housing builds than we do. Because planning isn't a problem there.
Fix the problem, houses will be built. Whinging about labour is just an excuse by NIMBYs who don't want the real problem fixed.
Um, the reason why I'm saying that labour is a problem is because i'm currently working at a major UK housebuilder in a position that means I really do hear about issues..
When I say they can't get staff it's because that is what I'm hearing on an hourly basis - and paying more won't solve the issue, the issue is we don't have the skills and we aren't training people up...
I've heard similar - we have an increasing under-employment problem. Put simply, if you have 20 people apply for 5 jobs you have an unemployment problem if 5 people apply for 5 jobs you have full employment, if 1 person applies for 5 jobs you have an under-employment problem.
I'm hearing this is serious in local Government with vacancies running at 20%+ in some areas.
It's not a skills problem - those with the skills have the work, there just aren't enough of them.
All I'm hearing is some who think cajoling the retired and pensioners into work by claiming some sort of civic obligation could be the answer - that's absurd. There is a pool of employees among carers who can only do limited hours but we need companies and organisations to think more flexibly. I'd also look at the unemployment rate among disabled people and ask if there's not more we can do to bring some of those individuals into work.
I'm going to say the same thing here. Employers, including the government, need to be more willing to sponsor the on-the-job training and upskilling of its workforce.
This becoming a more standard way of operating would help improve the productivity of our existing workforce, rather than every Tom, Dick and Harry demanding that they can recruit from overseas if there's a shortage of people fully trained.
But investment in operations is Evul!
Plus the workforce in the building trade has been badly treated for many years.
Getting them to pay for courses won’t work. And the usual scumbags have already turned the loans-for-training-paid-off-by-working into scams.
Since no one is directly employed and you can’t tie people to an employer in return for training, anyway, how should the training be structured?
I think it has to be tackled from the quality of provision side.
I'm not an expert on the sector, but if
1) There's planning reform and investment to facilitate a bit increase in housebuilding opportunities over the long-term
2) There's the ability for homebuilders make an increase in profits by increasing the number of homes they build
... Then there must be a way to get homebuilders to train more people to do the work. If there's not, it's a sign of market failure and the government should either reform whatever labour market arbitrage is holding it back, or create a government-backed competitor that does the job for them to add to competition.
The entire economy has been trained to believe in a right to cheap, ready trained workers.
There are businesses betting that Labour will open the taps, and get rates for skilled workers back down to minimum wage.
That’s the mentality.
I agree. But Labour should resist. Improve the skills of the existing workforce. Support labour (small l). It can be one of Keir's many missions.
Migration will remain important, but it currently feels like it's a opioid on which many sectors of the economy are addicted. It is preventing us from being as productive or as rich a society as we would be if we invested in ourselves.
If house builders are complaining about labour shortages, then they need to start hiring more apprentice tradespeople, and train them up.
FPT Careless cycling or dangerous cycling is NOT the same as careless cycling causing death or serious injury or dangerous cycling causing death or serious injury which the new law allows for. Death by dangerous driving is up to an 18 year sentence, wanton or furious cycling gives a maximum 2 year sentence
Going 9mph over the speed limit certainly could come under careless or even dangerous driving or cycling as the police website says and yes motorists DO get charged with going that much over the speed limit. The police in question would almost certainly take such actions further once the new law comes in
The cyclist in the Regents Park collision could not be charged with causing death because he did not cause it, as per the Coroner's "Accidental Death" finding. It's open and shut. The police in question would never take further action because there is no basis for them to do so, with or without IDS's new law.
The death in the Regents Park collision was not unlawful; that is the definition of "ACCIDENTAL DEATH" in a Coroner's Verdict.
On careless or dangerous, and recalling that the definitions are the same for "driving" or "cycling":
1 - It is a general principle that speeding alone is not sufficient to form the basis for a charge of dangerous driving. There have to be other factors. There is a (far more extensive than I would like) body of caselaw on this. https://roadlawbarristers.co.uk/serious-speeding-enough-for-a-charge-of-dangerous-driving/ (Scotland is similar and there are references if you search.)
2 - It is in CPS Guidelines that the result "causing death" has no impact on whether driving is assessed as Careless or Dangerous. It's a consequence which raises the charge to "causing death by ...", but the existence of a death is not relevant to the assessment of quality of driving.
3 - There's stuff in guidelines about speeding, but it is "inappropriate speeding" - and it is the "inappropriate" not the "speeding" that makes it careless or dangerous driving or cycling.
I'm no fan of our legal setup and interpretations, but it is what it is and for now we have to live with it.
What we are experiencing is knee jerking from politicians (and their supporting media) desperate to have a go at some people to please certain elements of their base. The reaction is out of proportion and misdirected, and the legislative time could be spent far more usefully on other aspects - some of which I have pointed out.
The cyclist in Regent's Park was doing NINE mph over the 20mph limit. Any driver doing that who killed would at least be charged with death by careless driving and facing up to 4 years in prison (even if most likely suspended if not using drink or drugs). A coroner is also not an accident investigator.
Speeding alone is sufficient to lead to a dangerous driving charge and indeed many have been convicted of it, see this case for example where a driver driving at 58mph in a 30mph was jailed for 3 years for killing a pedestrian. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-68714492
Drivers and motorcyclists and lorry drivers have faced years in prison if they kill or seriously injure even if just driving carelessly and potentially over a decade in prison if they kill or seriously injure having driven dangerously or under the influence of drink or drugs.
So finally as a result of this new law if more cyclists get sent to prison for killing if they were driving dangerously or even just carelessly, so be it. The law and speed limits apply to cyclists as much as drivers
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.
It's simply a fact of law that speeding alone does not constitute dangerous or I think careless driving; it has to be "speed and something else".
And quoting a couple of "speed and something else" cases doesn't show that it is just speed.
We've dealt with the Regents Park accident, where no fault attaches to the cyclist because it was an accident when the pedestrian stepped out so immediately in front of him that avoidance was impossible.
For the other two, neither is speeding alone.
58mph in a 30mph was a driver who admitted that he did not even see the pedestrian he ran down. Far below the standard expected.
71mph had been driving his car dangerously round corners, almost losing control of it, and did a dangerous overtake when he hit someone turning right into a drive in front of him.
Drivers and motorcyclists and lorry drivers pose a far greater risk to vulnerable road users than do cyclists; that's why the time would be better spent on other matters. In this country we usually address road safety rationally as a Safe Systems approach - like H&S in the workplace, addressing the problems with larger consequences first.
Except when a stupid politician or two politicians put their personal predilections above reason. That's why this law is a misdirected waste of time.
Here's a piece from last month pointing out that 9 people were killed by mobility scooters in 2022. That is about 6-7 times higher than the average deaths per annum in pedestrian / cyclist collisions.
FPT Careless cycling or dangerous cycling is NOT the same as careless cycling causing death or serious injury or dangerous cycling causing death or serious injury which the new law allows for. Death by dangerous driving is up to an 18 year sentence, wanton or furious cycling gives a maximum 2 year sentence
Going 9mph over the speed limit certainly could come under careless or even dangerous driving or cycling as the police website says and yes motorists DO get charged with going that much over the speed limit. The police in question would almost certainly take such actions further once the new law comes in
The cyclist in the Regents Park collision could not be charged with causing death because he did not cause it, as per the Coroner's "Accidental Death" finding. It's open and shut. The police in question would never take further action because there is no basis for them to do so, with or without IDS's new law.
The death in the Regents Park collision was not unlawful; that is the definition of "ACCIDENTAL DEATH" in a Coroner's Verdict.
On careless or dangerous, and recalling that the definitions are the same for "driving" or "cycling":
1 - It is a general principle that speeding alone is not sufficient to form the basis for a charge of dangerous driving. There have to be other factors. There is a (far more extensive than I would like) body of caselaw on this. https://roadlawbarristers.co.uk/serious-speeding-enough-for-a-charge-of-dangerous-driving/ (Scotland is similar and there are references if you search.)
2 - It is in CPS Guidelines that the result "causing death" has no impact on whether driving is assessed as Careless or Dangerous. It's a consequence which raises the charge to "causing death by ...", but the existence of a death is not relevant to the assessment of quality of driving.
3 - There's stuff in guidelines about speeding, but it is "inappropriate speeding" - and it is the "inappropriate" not the "speeding" that makes it careless or dangerous driving or cycling.
I'm no fan of our legal setup and interpretations, but it is what it is and for now we have to live with it.
What we are experiencing is knee jerking from politicians (and their supporting media) desperate to have a go at some people to please certain elements of their base. The reaction is out of proportion and misdirected, and the legislative time could be spent far more usefully on other aspects - some of which I have pointed out.
The cyclist in Regent's Park was doing NINE mph over the 20mph limit. Any driver doing that who killed would at least be charged with death by careless driving and facing up to 4 years in prison (even if most likely suspended if not using drink or drugs). A coroner is also not an accident investigator.
Speeding alone is sufficient to lead to a dangerous driving charge and indeed many have been convicted of it, see this case for example where a driver driving at 58mph in a 30mph was jailed for 3 years for killing a pedestrian. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-68714492
Drivers and motorcyclists and lorry drivers have faced years in prison if they kill or seriously injure even if just driving carelessly and potentially over a decade in prison if they kill or seriously injure having driven dangerously or under the influence of drink or drugs.
So finally as a result of this new law if more cyclists get sent to prison for killing if they were driving dangerously or even just carelessly, so be it. The law and speed limits apply to cyclists as much as drivers
Even under this new law speed limits won't apply to bicycles. So you're wrong there.
I don't mind a new "dangerous" law for cyclists it as long as the punishment is proportionate. For example, a car travelling at 30mph carries as much energy as a cyclist doing 130mph.
If a speed limit of 20mph is applied to bicycles, the equivalent for cars should be 5mph.
Yes they will, a cyclist who is driving over a 20mph or 30mph limit who kills or seriously injuries will now face a death or serious injury by dangerous or careless driving charge and potentially go to prison
Will they? They would have to prove that it's dangerous, in the same way that you do for a car driver.
Any defence lawyer will point to *the laws of physics* and explain that the speed is equivalent to about 5mph for a car.
Unless you're suggesting that anyone driving around at over 5mph is a dangerous driver?
Anyone driving over a 20mph or 30mph speed limit who kills a pedestrian is likely at least guilty of death by careless driving whether a driver or a cyclist
Absolute rubbish.
Well, let me qualify that. If a driver has killed a pedestrian then it probably is likely they're guilty of death by careless driving.
But the speed being over the limit has nowt to do with that at all. It's well established in law that speeding per se isn't dangerous/careless. Just as well when we have such pathetically upper limits. I'd abolish them entirely if it were up to me. 400mph on the M74 at 5am? Awesome. I hope to see technology that allows it.
Kill at 400mph on a motorway and that is certainly death by dangerous driving
FPT Careless cycling or dangerous cycling is NOT the same as careless cycling causing death or serious injury or dangerous cycling causing death or serious injury which the new law allows for. Death by dangerous driving is up to an 18 year sentence, wanton or furious cycling gives a maximum 2 year sentence
Going 9mph over the speed limit certainly could come under careless or even dangerous driving or cycling as the police website says and yes motorists DO get charged with going that much over the speed limit. The police in question would almost certainly take such actions further once the new law comes in
The cyclist in the Regents Park collision could not be charged with causing death because he did not cause it, as per the Coroner's "Accidental Death" finding. It's open and shut. The police in question would never take further action because there is no basis for them to do so, with or without IDS's new law.
The death in the Regents Park collision was not unlawful; that is the definition of "ACCIDENTAL DEATH" in a Coroner's Verdict.
On careless or dangerous, and recalling that the definitions are the same for "driving" or "cycling":
1 - It is a general principle that speeding alone is not sufficient to form the basis for a charge of dangerous driving. There have to be other factors. There is a (far more extensive than I would like) body of caselaw on this. https://roadlawbarristers.co.uk/serious-speeding-enough-for-a-charge-of-dangerous-driving/ (Scotland is similar and there are references if you search.)
2 - It is in CPS Guidelines that the result "causing death" has no impact on whether driving is assessed as Careless or Dangerous. It's a consequence which raises the charge to "causing death by ...", but the existence of a death is not relevant to the assessment of quality of driving.
3 - There's stuff in guidelines about speeding, but it is "inappropriate speeding" - and it is the "inappropriate" not the "speeding" that makes it careless or dangerous driving or cycling.
I'm no fan of our legal setup and interpretations, but it is what it is and for now we have to live with it.
What we are experiencing is knee jerking from politicians (and their supporting media) desperate to have a go at some people to please certain elements of their base. The reaction is out of proportion and misdirected, and the legislative time could be spent far more usefully on other aspects - some of which I have pointed out.
The cyclist in Regent's Park was doing NINE mph over the 20mph limit. Any driver doing that who killed would at least be charged with death by careless driving and facing up to 4 years in prison (even if most likely suspended if not using drink or drugs). A coroner is also not an accident investigator.
Speeding alone is sufficient to lead to a dangerous driving charge and indeed many have been convicted of it, see this case for example where a driver driving at 58mph in a 30mph was jailed for 3 years for killing a pedestrian. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-68714492
Drivers and motorcyclists and lorry drivers have faced years in prison if they kill or seriously injure even if just driving carelessly and potentially over a decade in prison if they kill or seriously injure having driven dangerously or under the influence of drink or drugs.
So finally as a result of this new law if more cyclists get sent to prison for killing if they were driving dangerously or even just carelessly, so be it. The law and speed limits apply to cyclists as much as drivers
Even under this new law speed limits won't apply to bicycles. So you're wrong there.
I don't mind a new "dangerous" law for cyclists it as long as the punishment is proportionate. For example, a car travelling at 30mph carries as much energy as a cyclist doing 130mph.
If a speed limit of 20mph is applied to bicycles, the equivalent for cars should be 5mph.
Yes they will, a cyclist who is driving over a 20mph or 30mph limit who kills or seriously injuries will now face a death or serious injury by dangerous or careless driving charge and potentially go to prison
Will they? They would have to prove that it's dangerous, in the same way that you do for a car driver.
Any defence lawyer will point to *the laws of physics* and explain that the speed is equivalent to about 5mph for a car.
Unless you're suggesting that anyone driving around at over 5mph is a dangerous driver?
Anyone driving over a 20mph or 30mph speed limit who kills a pedestrian is likely at least guilty of death by careless driving whether a driver or a cyclist
No. A charging decision will be based on the circumstances of each case. If a pedestrian steps out in front of a speeding vehicle for no reason when sightlines were clear, charges will overwhelmingly not be laid.
Not that I think charging decisions are very good. It is routine for eg 'but I was dazzled by the sun (when I was driving at normal speed)' or similar nonsense to be an excuse which results in no charges or minor charges for putting someone in hospital or killing them.
When any careful or competent driver would slow down as far as necessary to be able to drive safely - to walking pace if necessary.
Even being dazzled by the sun now gets you a suspended sentence and community order if you seriously injure
FPT Careless cycling or dangerous cycling is NOT the same as careless cycling causing death or serious injury or dangerous cycling causing death or serious injury which the new law allows for. Death by dangerous driving is up to an 18 year sentence, wanton or furious cycling gives a maximum 2 year sentence
Going 9mph over the speed limit certainly could come under careless or even dangerous driving or cycling as the police website says and yes motorists DO get charged with going that much over the speed limit. The police in question would almost certainly take such actions further once the new law comes in
The cyclist in the Regents Park collision could not be charged with causing death because he did not cause it, as per the Coroner's "Accidental Death" finding. It's open and shut. The police in question would never take further action because there is no basis for them to do so, with or without IDS's new law.
The death in the Regents Park collision was not unlawful; that is the definition of "ACCIDENTAL DEATH" in a Coroner's Verdict.
On careless or dangerous, and recalling that the definitions are the same for "driving" or "cycling":
1 - It is a general principle that speeding alone is not sufficient to form the basis for a charge of dangerous driving. There have to be other factors. There is a (far more extensive than I would like) body of caselaw on this. https://roadlawbarristers.co.uk/serious-speeding-enough-for-a-charge-of-dangerous-driving/ (Scotland is similar and there are references if you search.)
2 - It is in CPS Guidelines that the result "causing death" has no impact on whether driving is assessed as Careless or Dangerous. It's a consequence which raises the charge to "causing death by ...", but the existence of a death is not relevant to the assessment of quality of driving.
3 - There's stuff in guidelines about speeding, but it is "inappropriate speeding" - and it is the "inappropriate" not the "speeding" that makes it careless or dangerous driving or cycling.
I'm no fan of our legal setup and interpretations, but it is what it is and for now we have to live with it.
What we are experiencing is knee jerking from politicians (and their supporting media) desperate to have a go at some people to please certain elements of their base. The reaction is out of proportion and misdirected, and the legislative time could be spent far more usefully on other aspects - some of which I have pointed out.
The cyclist in Regent's Park was doing NINE mph over the 20mph limit. Any driver doing that who killed would at least be charged with death by careless driving and facing up to 4 years in prison (even if most likely suspended if not using drink or drugs). A coroner is also not an accident investigator.
Speeding alone is sufficient to lead to a dangerous driving charge and indeed many have been convicted of it, see this case for example where a driver driving at 58mph in a 30mph was jailed for 3 years for killing a pedestrian. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-68714492
Drivers and motorcyclists and lorry drivers have faced years in prison if they kill or seriously injure even if just driving carelessly and potentially over a decade in prison if they kill or seriously injure having driven dangerously or under the influence of drink or drugs.
So finally as a result of this new law if more cyclists get sent to prison for killing if they were driving dangerously or even just carelessly, so be it. The law and speed limits apply to cyclists as much as drivers
Even under this new law speed limits won't apply to bicycles. So you're wrong there.
I don't mind a new "dangerous" law for cyclists it as long as the punishment is proportionate. For example, a car travelling at 30mph carries as much energy as a cyclist doing 130mph.
If a speed limit of 20mph is applied to bicycles, the equivalent for cars should be 5mph.
Yes they will, a cyclist who is driving over a 20mph or 30mph limit who kills or seriously injuries will now face a death or serious injury by dangerous or careless driving charge and potentially go to prison
Will they? They would have to prove that it's dangerous, in the same way that you do for a car driver.
Any defence lawyer will point to *the laws of physics* and explain that the speed is equivalent to about 5mph for a car.
Unless you're suggesting that anyone driving around at over 5mph is a dangerous driver?
Anyone driving over a 20mph or 30mph speed limit who kills a pedestrian is likely at least guilty of death by careless driving whether a driver or a cyclist
No. A charging decision will be based on the circumstances of each case. If a pedestrian steps out in front of a speeding vehicle for no reason when sightlines were clear, charges will overwhelmingly not be laid.
Not that I think charging decisions are very good. It is routine for eg 'but I was dazzled by the sun (when I was driving at normal speed)' or similar nonsense to be an excuse which results in no charges or minor charges for putting someone in hospital or killing them.
When any careful or competent driver would slow down as far as necessary to be able to drive safely - to walking pace if necessary.
The other excuse is a "temporary blackout". Which should come with a life ban from driving on medical grounds.
Killing while asleep at the wheel can also now see you jailed
FPT Careless cycling or dangerous cycling is NOT the same as careless cycling causing death or serious injury or dangerous cycling causing death or serious injury which the new law allows for. Death by dangerous driving is up to an 18 year sentence, wanton or furious cycling gives a maximum 2 year sentence
Going 9mph over the speed limit certainly could come under careless or even dangerous driving or cycling as the police website says and yes motorists DO get charged with going that much over the speed limit. The police in question would almost certainly take such actions further once the new law comes in
The cyclist in the Regents Park collision could not be charged with causing death because he did not cause it, as per the Coroner's "Accidental Death" finding. It's open and shut. The police in question would never take further action because there is no basis for them to do so, with or without IDS's new law.
The death in the Regents Park collision was not unlawful; that is the definition of "ACCIDENTAL DEATH" in a Coroner's Verdict.
On careless or dangerous, and recalling that the definitions are the same for "driving" or "cycling":
1 - It is a general principle that speeding alone is not sufficient to form the basis for a charge of dangerous driving. There have to be other factors. There is a (far more extensive than I would like) body of caselaw on this. https://roadlawbarristers.co.uk/serious-speeding-enough-for-a-charge-of-dangerous-driving/ (Scotland is similar and there are references if you search.)
2 - It is in CPS Guidelines that the result "causing death" has no impact on whether driving is assessed as Careless or Dangerous. It's a consequence which raises the charge to "causing death by ...", but the existence of a death is not relevant to the assessment of quality of driving.
3 - There's stuff in guidelines about speeding, but it is "inappropriate speeding" - and it is the "inappropriate" not the "speeding" that makes it careless or dangerous driving or cycling.
I'm no fan of our legal setup and interpretations, but it is what it is and for now we have to live with it.
What we are experiencing is knee jerking from politicians (and their supporting media) desperate to have a go at some people to please certain elements of their base. The reaction is out of proportion and misdirected, and the legislative time could be spent far more usefully on other aspects - some of which I have pointed out.
The cyclist in Regent's Park was doing NINE mph over the 20mph limit. Any driver doing that who killed would at least be charged with death by careless driving and facing up to 4 years in prison (even if most likely suspended if not using drink or drugs). A coroner is also not an accident investigator.
Speeding alone is sufficient to lead to a dangerous driving charge and indeed many have been convicted of it, see this case for example where a driver driving at 58mph in a 30mph was jailed for 3 years for killing a pedestrian. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-68714492
Drivers and motorcyclists and lorry drivers have faced years in prison if they kill or seriously injure even if just driving carelessly and potentially over a decade in prison if they kill or seriously injure having driven dangerously or under the influence of drink or drugs.
So finally as a result of this new law if more cyclists get sent to prison for killing if they were driving dangerously or even just carelessly, so be it. The law and speed limits apply to cyclists as much as drivers
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.
It's simply a fact of law that speeding alone does not constitute dangerous or I think careless driving; it has to be "speed and something else".
And quoting a couple of "speed and something else" cases doesn't show that it is just speed.
We've dealt with the Regents Park accident, where no fault attaches to the cyclist because it was an accident when the pedestrian stepped out so immediately in front of him that avoidance was impossible.
For the other two, neither is speeding alone.
58mph in a 30mph was a driver who admitted that he did not even see the pedestrian he ran down. Far below the standard expected.
71mph had been driving his car dangerously round corners, almost losing control of it, and did a dangerous overtake when he hit someone turning right into a drive in front of him.
Drivers and motorcyclists and lorry drivers pose a far greater risk to vulnerable road users than do cyclists; that's why the time would be better spent on other matters. In this country we usually address road safety rationally as a Safe Systems approach - like H&S in the workplace, addressing the problems with larger consequences first.
Except when a stupid politician or two politicians put their personal predilections above reason. That's why this law is a misdirected waste of time.
Here's a piece from last month pointing out that 9 people were killed by mobility scooters in 2022. That is about 6-7 times higher than the average deaths per annum in pedestrian / cyclist collisions.
Yet so lazy and narrowminded is IDS that he couldn't even be bothered to include those, which could have been done very easily.
Mobility scooters are arguably motorised vehicles anyway.
IDS should be commended for ensuring that cyclists who kill can finally be put behind bars
In the cases in question the fact the pedestrian was not seen was directly related to the speeding. The dangerous overtake and near loss of control around the corner was also related to the speeding too
FPT Careless cycling or dangerous cycling is NOT the same as careless cycling causing death or serious injury or dangerous cycling causing death or serious injury which the new law allows for. Death by dangerous driving is up to an 18 year sentence, wanton or furious cycling gives a maximum 2 year sentence
Going 9mph over the speed limit certainly could come under careless or even dangerous driving or cycling as the police website says and yes motorists DO get charged with going that much over the speed limit. The police in question would almost certainly take such actions further once the new law comes in
The cyclist in the Regents Park collision could not be charged with causing death because he did not cause it, as per the Coroner's "Accidental Death" finding. It's open and shut. The police in question would never take further action because there is no basis for them to do so, with or without IDS's new law.
The death in the Regents Park collision was not unlawful; that is the definition of "ACCIDENTAL DEATH" in a Coroner's Verdict.
On careless or dangerous, and recalling that the definitions are the same for "driving" or "cycling":
1 - It is a general principle that speeding alone is not sufficient to form the basis for a charge of dangerous driving. There have to be other factors. There is a (far more extensive than I would like) body of caselaw on this. https://roadlawbarristers.co.uk/serious-speeding-enough-for-a-charge-of-dangerous-driving/ (Scotland is similar and there are references if you search.)
2 - It is in CPS Guidelines that the result "causing death" has no impact on whether driving is assessed as Careless or Dangerous. It's a consequence which raises the charge to "causing death by ...", but the existence of a death is not relevant to the assessment of quality of driving.
3 - There's stuff in guidelines about speeding, but it is "inappropriate speeding" - and it is the "inappropriate" not the "speeding" that makes it careless or dangerous driving or cycling.
I'm no fan of our legal setup and interpretations, but it is what it is and for now we have to live with it.
What we are experiencing is knee jerking from politicians (and their supporting media) desperate to have a go at some people to please certain elements of their base. The reaction is out of proportion and misdirected, and the legislative time could be spent far more usefully on other aspects - some of which I have pointed out.
The cyclist in Regent's Park was doing NINE mph over the 20mph limit. Any driver doing that who killed would at least be charged with death by careless driving and facing up to 4 years in prison (even if most likely suspended if not using drink or drugs). A coroner is also not an accident investigator.
Speeding alone is sufficient to lead to a dangerous driving charge and indeed many have been convicted of it, see this case for example where a driver driving at 58mph in a 30mph was jailed for 3 years for killing a pedestrian. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-68714492
Drivers and motorcyclists and lorry drivers have faced years in prison if they kill or seriously injure even if just driving carelessly and potentially over a decade in prison if they kill or seriously injure having driven dangerously or under the influence of drink or drugs.
So finally as a result of this new law if more cyclists get sent to prison for killing if they were driving dangerously or even just carelessly, so be it. The law and speed limits apply to cyclists as much as drivers
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.
It's simply a fact of law that speeding alone does not constitute dangerous or I think careless driving; it has to be "speed and something else".
And quoting a couple of "speed and something else" cases doesn't show that it is just speed.
We've dealt with the Regents Park accident, where no fault attaches to the cyclist because it was an accident when the pedestrian stepped out so immediately in front of him that avoidance was impossible.
For the other two, neither is speeding alone.
58mph in a 30mph was a driver who admitted that he did not even see the pedestrian he ran down. Far below the standard expected.
71mph had been driving his car dangerously round corners, almost losing control of it, and did a dangerous overtake when he hit someone turning right into a drive in front of him.
Drivers and motorcyclists and lorry drivers pose a far greater risk to vulnerable road users than do cyclists; that's why the time would be better spent on other matters. In this country we usually address road safety rationally as a Safe Systems approach - like H&S in the workplace, addressing the problems with larger consequences first.
Except when a stupid politician or two politicians put their personal predilections above reason. That's why this law is a misdirected waste of time.
Here's a piece from last month pointing out that 9 people were killed by mobility scooters in 2022. That is about 6-7 times higher than the average deaths per annum in pedestrian / cyclist collisions.
After three polls with 20+ leads for Labour and each of them showing near-extinction level events for the Conservatives, I suspect nerves will be clamed by the Opinium this weekend which should show a Labour lead below 20 points but we'll see.
Last Opinium 24-40.
Peter Kelner revealed in a piece in Prospect how Opinium calculate the swingback, a straightforward -3 Labour +3 Conservative on what research told. At what point during proceedings is it deemed so close to election, historical Swingback has happened, in part at least?
The actual closing on the gap can be through Reform melting back to Con, something that is already happening since local election, but largely disguised by Labours recent uptick.
My guess is Lab 41-26 Con. The labour uptick + the Ref slide back into Con. and we will have to explain on PB yet again, its swing-back manipulated so not 15 but really 21 23-44.
After three polls with 20+ leads for Labour and each of them showing near-extinction level events for the Conservatives, I suspect nerves will be clamed by the Opinium this weekend which should show a Labour lead below 20 points but we'll see.
Last Opinium 24-40.
Peter Kelner revealed in a piece in Prospect how Opinium calculate the swingback, a straightforward -3 Labour +3 Conservative on what research told. At what point during proceedings is it deemed so close to election, historical Swingback has happened, in part at least?
The actual closing on the gap can be through Reform melting back to Con, something that is already happening since local election, but largely disguised by Labours recent uptick.
My guess is Lab 41-26 Con. The labour uptick + the Ref slide back into Con. and we will have to explain on PB yet again, its swing-back manipulated so not 15 but really 21 23-44.
There, I’ve done my explaining out the way.
Good morning. Man or Bear?
🤷♀️ This place gets ever weirder.
OMG. It’s actually the on topic discussion, courtesy of The Screaming Soccer Moms, sorry Eagles.
Not polling discussion night obviously
Well you are actually asking the wrong girl this particular skewed question.
But. In the Dream Sequence of Borowczyks The Beast, the girl (clearly a girl because she has to run like a girly) is chased through the woods by a bear, and all her clothes fall off. But she ends up shagging the Bear to death and thoroughly getting her rocks off.
What does it all mean? Well it’s obviously all from the mind of a pervert man director. A bears the metaphor of man. Probably the director himself. Take from this whatever ye want.
Later today an Opinium with at least 2 point rise in Tory rating, showing the Ref to Tory melt back is very real and happening quite quickly now at this stage.
Comments
The abuse I have received (including online here) is quite frankly appalling.
Give me the bear any day.
Untrained pencil pushers making decisions based on targets and the likely devastating consequences. All so this cesspit government can get arse licking headlines from the Daily Mail and DE .
The public should be reminded that one day they may also need that “ sick note “ .
When the British arm was spun off to being British owned, caps on commissions were put in place. Cheating was used as the justification, nonetheless the entrepreneurial spirit died. When operatives reached their limits they didn't go that extra mile. In the American days drivers would be out to six or seven in the evening to smash through their personal targets, now the vans can be all back by two O' clock.
I found this report on the impact of a 'Carrington event' interesting:
https://raeng.org.uk/media/2iclimo5/space_weather_summary_report.pdf
Ladbrokes' maintenance has been extended from 7.30am to 8.30am, so we'll see how that goes.
Considering Leclerc or Norris to do well in qualifying and the race.
NEW THREAD
IDS should be commended for ensuring that cyclists who kill can finally be put behind bars
"Ex-Brookside star Louis Emerick given suspended sentence over crash - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65977373.amp
"Historian jailed for killing Sunderland couple in horror crash - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3gyypmrgk1o.amp
While I don't particularly object to there being a specific offence, its introduction is merely performative.
In the recent discussed case, the cyclist is not more guilty of a crime under the new law than under the old.
Not polling discussion night obviously
Well you are actually asking the wrong girl this particular skewed question.
But. In the Dream Sequence of Borowczyks The Beast, the girl (clearly a girl because she has to run like a girly) is chased through the woods by a bear, and all her clothes fall off. But she ends up shagging the Bear to death and thoroughly getting her rocks off.
What does it all mean? Well it’s obviously all from the mind of a pervert man director. A bears the metaphor of man. Probably the director himself. Take from this whatever ye want.
Later today an Opinium with at least 2 point rise in Tory rating, showing the Ref to Tory melt back is very real and happening quite quickly now at this stage.
I won’t say I told you so when election is 39 33.
Oh I probably will.
I wonder if the Leeanderthal Man will change his spots again.
Wouldn't that be Out-Churchill-ing Churchill?
The only man in the country with a spinning, triangular coat.