“”“The way cycling deaths are treated by police and prosecutors may need to change, the former Director of Public Prosecutions has said.
Sir Keir Starmer said there was a “very strong case” for the Crown Prosecution Service to make the final decision on whether to prosecute cases.
Currently, police forces in England and Wales decide whether to pass a case on to the CPS after investigating a death.
The CPS said cases should be referred to a prosecutor as early as possible.
Department of Transport figures show 113 cyclists were killed in the UK last year.
Last year a Freedom of Information request by BBC’s Newsbeat found that between 2007 and 2014 there were 276 recorded incidents where a cyclist was killed in an accident involving a motor vehicle.
Of these, 148 - 54% - resulted in the driver of the vehicle being charged with an offence. Of those found guilty, fewer than half went to prison.
Sir Keir, now a Labour MP, told the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire programme that if a death was involved and it was serious enough to have had a criminal investigation “then it really ought to go off to the CPS for the final decision”.”“”"
im sure we can all agree that any measure to protect the vulnerable is very welcome
Firstly no surprise that he doesn’t seem to have noticed that the Labour Party doesn’t have any electoral mandate to do zb all.As for a system of carte blanche immunity for cyclists based on their vulnerability and not on wether they follow the rules of the road that’ll work.Meanwhile we’ve got the obvious conflict of interest that the transport unions who should be there to defend drivers are affiliated with the same ‘Labour’ Party.
Of these, 148 - 54% - resulted in the driver of the vehicle being charged with an offence. Of those found guilty, fewer than half went to prison.
Maybe because the ‘vulnerable idiot’ was at fault and NOT the vehicle driver…
This thread was started by a man who, when asked a few months ago for his views and thoughts on a video of a guy cycling on a dual carriageway while holding onto the back of a lorry, said “It was me, I do it all the time. Its great” so I dont think we need take too much notice of anything he says regarding “protecting the most vulnerable” or anything he demands be done to protect cyclists since he has previously admitted to not bothering about A- his own safety or B - the law or rules of the road.
Like roaduser66 he likes to draw attention to these articles and tell us all about how vulnerable cyclists are but repeatedly dodges questions on his thoughts of the suicidal actions of plenty cyclists such as red light running, undercutting left turning vehicles etc. Its depressingly predictable
Talking of juries, they’re still out on the above statement.
Thread started in the early hours, was probably searching the net for some cycle news to troll about on here for hours beforehand.
according to the hysterior of the cycle lobby " someone must be summonsed " regardless of how stupid the cyclist’s actions are . if a man jumps off a bridge and kills himself , should the bridge be punished ?
What about the cyclist I passed on a dark country lane at 5:30 am no lights and dark clothing [emoji49] if I knocked him off and killed him I would be taken to court due to his muppettry
blue estate:
What about the cyclist I passed on a dark country lane at 5:30 am no lights and dark clothing [emoji49] if I knocked him off and killed him I would be taken to court due to his muppettry
How did you know he was there ? And yes, if you had not had your lights on and you had run him over then you would be at fault.
I’m a cyclist and will defend cyclists when they deserve it. Unfortunately, not all cyclists actions are defendable. The automatic presumption of guilt (until proven otherwise) on the part of the motorist is plain wrong.
rigsby:
according to the hysterior of the cycle lobby " someone must be summonsed " regardless of how stupid the cyclist’s actions are . if a man jumps off a bridge and kills himself , should the bridge be punished ?
No, the new proposals would mean that how he had come to be found dead under the bridge would be given thorough consideration, no more of this “police can’t be bothered to investigate, he must have jumped malarkey”
Captain Caveman 76:
I’m a cyclist and will defend cyclists when they deserve it. Unfortunately, not all cyclists actions are defendable. The automatic presumption of guilt (until proven otherwise) on the part of the motorist is plain wrong.
blue estate:
What about the cyclist I passed on a dark country lane at 5:30 am no lights and dark clothing [emoji49] if I knocked him off and killed him I would be taken to court due to his muppettry
nope . not what he is saying .
it would be referred to CPS to decide whether to prosecute you …
not PC Plonker .
anyways if visibility was your only defence then i would hope you would be prosecuted , because i doubt a drunk staggering around , or a small child running into road would wear hi viz cothing or lights .
it is your responsibility to see them and not kill them isnt it ■■
blue estate:
What about the cyclist I passed on a dark country lane at 5:30 am no lights and dark clothing [emoji49] if I knocked him off and killed him I would be taken to court due to his muppettry
nope . not what he is saying .
it would be referred to CPS to decide whether to prosecute you …
not PC Plonker .
anyways if visibility was your only defence then i would hope you would be prosecuted , because i doubt a drunk staggering around , or a small child running into road would wear hi viz cothing or lights .
it is your responsibility to see them and not kill them isnt it ■■
Cylists have a responsibilty to operate within the law.
Captain Caveman 76:
I’m a cyclist and will defend cyclists when they deserve it. Unfortunately, not all cyclists actions are defendable. The automatic presumption of guilt (until proven otherwise) on the part of the motorist is plain wrong.
Captain Caveman 76:
I’m a cyclist and will defend cyclists when they deserve it. Unfortunately, not all cyclists actions are defendable. The automatic presumption of guilt (until proven otherwise) on the part of the motorist is plain wrong.
Carryfast:
Firstly no surprise that he doesn’t seem to have noticed that the Labour Party doesn’t have any electoral mandate to do zb all.
Sorry , i just dont remember VOTING on CPS policy !!
They will do whatever they please .
And he says he is ‘NOT’ calling for blanket immunity from his former empire , like Holland .
But wants every death reviewed by CPS .
Simples
According to the article the change is being called for by a Labour MP not the CPS. Meanwhile how can the CPS ‘review’ anything when it’s the police who have the remit of accident investigations.
boredwivdrivin:
anyways if visibility was your only defence then i would hope you would be prosecuted , because i doubt a drunk staggering around , or a small child running into road would wear hi viz cothing or lights .
it is your responsibility to see them and not kill them isnt it ■■
Is it just me that thinks you are a sad pathetic little ■■■■? Do you look forward to your next neighbourhood watch meeting? I bet it’s Christmas and birthday all rolled into one when a planning notice goes up on a nearby lampost, you just brimming with excitement at the prospect of objecting to something for the sake of it.
Man up and admit you’re a failed driver that no self respecting company will touch with a bargepole, and your trolling on here is some sort of twisted relief.
