Laws on 'dangerous cyclists' to be updated
Discussion
Don't care about that one way or the other (well I'm midly against it) but what is more important to me is some of the original proposals were to bring in drink drive / drug limits the same as cars. Has that been abandoned? Very strongly against that as may as the intoxicated likely to think that they may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
fido said:
Definitely lacking consistency. It's not just Strava onanists overtaking cars in parks. I was outside Holborn station and saw some bell-end on a Lime bike straight through red lights at the junction of High Holborn and Kingsway nearly colliding with a car.
So that would be covered by existing laws then?as a cyclist i think this is good news, too many people are up their own arse in terms of importance. Whilst i sometimes jump a red light I make sure that when I do its safe for me, other people, and doesn't cause any confusion using that rare thing common sense. A good example of this is me doing a left turn at a t-junction near me on red whilst the cars in the road i'm turning left into are turning right. Impacts absolutely nobody.
Can the same be applied to pedestrians too? Too many times I've had people decide to walk out into the road FIRST, then look right instead of looking right to see if it's clear.
Can the same be applied to pedestrians too? Too many times I've had people decide to walk out into the road FIRST, then look right instead of looking right to see if it's clear.
I think we can be sure of one thing - it won't make one jot of difference to life on the roads for anybody.
The thing that puzzles me- to the best of my knowledge, with one exception every cyclist prosecuted over the death of a pedestrian has gone to jail, and that is a very different situation to drivers. So I'm not even sure what the (very few) campaigners for this are expecting to achieve.
The thing that puzzles me- to the best of my knowledge, with one exception every cyclist prosecuted over the death of a pedestrian has gone to jail, and that is a very different situation to drivers. So I'm not even sure what the (very few) campaigners for this are expecting to achieve.
My initial reaction was that this was a good change, because there have been a couple of cited cases where offenders have got off with tiny punishments because there wasn’t a specific offence to prosecute with.
But then thinking deeper, I have a concern that aligning offences and punishments to those for dangerous driving is perhaps going too far the other way. There’s very little pre-emptive and preventive offences for cyclists with which to change their behaviour before they potentially cause a fatal collision.
As a driver I have a whole bunch of measures in place that deter me from causing a death by dangerous driving before we even consider the dissuasive effect of punishment for that offence itself.
As a driver I am trained, I have been examined on my ability. I am licensed and insured. My driving behaviour is closely monitored for even minor infringements.
But then thinking deeper, I have a concern that aligning offences and punishments to those for dangerous driving is perhaps going too far the other way. There’s very little pre-emptive and preventive offences for cyclists with which to change their behaviour before they potentially cause a fatal collision.
As a driver I have a whole bunch of measures in place that deter me from causing a death by dangerous driving before we even consider the dissuasive effect of punishment for that offence itself.
As a driver I am trained, I have been examined on my ability. I am licensed and insured. My driving behaviour is closely monitored for even minor infringements.
Where can you get the text of this law? Is it a similar principle as dangerous driving where the standard of cycling has to fall way below an imaginary careful and competent cyclist?
If so I dread to think of your average jury trying to decide what that standard is. Most people drive so at least have some clue there. Most don't cycle (at least on road more than once in a blue moon) and as those of us who do cycle can attest many clearly haven't the first fecking clue.
If so I dread to think of your average jury trying to decide what that standard is. Most people drive so at least have some clue there. Most don't cycle (at least on road more than once in a blue moon) and as those of us who do cycle can attest many clearly haven't the first fecking clue.
I’ve been listening to a variety of radio stations the past week whilst driving and they have all been very anti cyclist as if bikes shou,d be banned were in general a bad choice of transport or recreation. Cycling should be encouraged. The reporting would be far more accurate and productive if it focussed on cyclist safety rather than the very few pedestrians killed by bicycles.
The main inhibitor for people to start cycling is the perceived danger from Motor traffic. No pedestrian is put off walking by the perceived threat of being hit by a bicycle.
The main inhibitor for people to start cycling is the perceived danger from Motor traffic. No pedestrian is put off walking by the perceived threat of being hit by a bicycle.
I think as long as they take a blind eye to illegal ebikes no one in the realm of a normal cyclist will have anything to worry about even if they did kill a ped.
The ones that get convicted are the ones who remove front brakes and do other stupid s
t in addition to 40mph through a box junction on red.
Does seem on the face of it very anti-cyclist because of maybe 1 case every couple of years that might reach that bar.
Us drivers get way more leniency in 3t 150mph vehicles.
The ones that get convicted are the ones who remove front brakes and do other stupid s
t in addition to 40mph through a box junction on red. Does seem on the face of it very anti-cyclist because of maybe 1 case every couple of years that might reach that bar.
Us drivers get way more leniency in 3t 150mph vehicles.
Catweazle said:
Even if all this does is make Jeremy Vine's head explode it will be worth it.Halmyre said:
Catweazle said:
Even if all this does is make Jeremy Vine's head explode it will be worth it.However, I work in Westminster and the tourists on bikes/e-bikes thing in central London is annoying for pedestrians eg lots of people riding fast around pedestrians and sometimes on pavements with very minimal apparent skill/caution. It might not be causing lots of injuries but it is intimidating.
ambuletz said:
as a cyclist i think this is good news, too many people are up their own arse in terms of importance. Whilst i sometimes jump a red light I make sure that when I do its safe for me, other people, and doesn't cause any confusion using that rare thing common sense. A good example of this is me doing a left turn at a t-junction near me on red whilst the cars in the road i'm turning left into are turning right. Impacts absolutely nobody.
Can the same be applied to pedestrians too? Too many times I've had people decide to walk out into the road FIRST, then look right instead of looking right to see if it's clear.
So, you admit to running red lights?Can the same be applied to pedestrians too? Too many times I've had people decide to walk out into the road FIRST, then look right instead of looking right to see if it's clear.
Do you know the up to date laws on giving way to pedestrians at road junctions? It is up to you to be prepared to stop and let a pwedestrian cross the road, if you are turning into a road.
In all my time as a cyclist I never once went through a red light.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/new-highw...
oyster said:
My driving behaviour is closely monitored for even minor infringements.
Dear God, I do disagree with that. There's very few police on the streets and roads nowadays, there's the odd camera dotted about.I reckon about 0.001% of driving infringements are prosecuted (we can argue all day over the noughts), we're allowed to buy cars that can smash speed limits to smithereens, and for many decades sentences for bad driving that kills or changes lives have been derisory (this has only recently changed somewhat).
So sorry, I gave your last sentence some thought, I can't even begin to think why you think that is the case.
Biker 1 said:
Perhaps they should put in a further amendment stipulating that if there is a cycle lane running adjacent to the road, cyclists MUST use it & not ride on the road. Punishment = death. Typical example the A24 dual carriageway north of Dorking.
There are plenty of cycle paths near where I live that are terrible pieces of design. One is a split path with pedestrians; the cycle lane crosses people's driveways, is interrupted by junctions joining the main road, and even the entrance to a school. Inevitably, inattentive pedestrians merrily cross the white line into the cycle lane all the time, or allow their small children and dogs to run around, often glued to their phones or deep in conversation whilst oblivious to what their offspring or pet are doing.The road alongside it is a relatively quiet residential road with lots of traffic calming. It's much safer and more convenient for cyclists to use the road.
I don't understand why any cyclist would use a typical A road. For the most part though, if you want to enforce a "cyclists must use cycle paths" rule, a lot more work is needed on the design of those cycle paths.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff