# Just watching the news about reviewing Cycling laws



## Tank63 (21 Sep 2017)

is it me or does the press hate cyclist.
Watching the news they seem to hate bike users.
I would imagine a lot of us on here have been out cycling when a pedestrian has stepped out in front of you. Most of the time it’s a near miss for both parties managing to avoid a collision.
I cannot see this ever stopping as pedestrians will not always look thinking they can’t hear an engine then it’s ok to not look and walk out. I do think if Cycling on the road you should have some sort of insurance just in case your involved in rta. But where do we stop regarding the laws?
What’s people opinions on this?


----------



## vickster (21 Sep 2017)

Tank63 said:


> is it me or does the press hate cyclist.
> Watching the news they seem to hate bike users.
> I would imagine a lot of us on here have been out cycling when a pedestrian has stepped out in front of you. Most of the time it’s a near miss for both parties managing to avoid a collision.
> I cannot see this ever stopping as pedestrians will not always look thinking they can’t hear an engine then it’s ok to not look and walk out. I do think if Cycling on the road you should have some sort of insurance just in case your involved in rta. But where do we stop regarding the laws?
> *What’s people opinions on this*?


Not to believe everything I hear on the news from a small number of vocal people


----------



## Drago (21 Sep 2017)

Steering clear of the TV news today. According to the commentators having a bicycle, riding it lawfully and carefully, being a better qualified cyclist than most folk are car drivers makes me the bar steward son of Attila the Hun and Lucrecia Borgia, genetically crossed with Jeffrey Dahmer and Ian Brady, and raised from a child by Reggie Kray and Fred West.

The percentage of news outlets participating are the clear majority and while they are vocal the numbers as a percentage of their kind are not small. Ironically, its the lentil cuddling media are baying loudest for cyclist blood. Yep, they refuse to call ISIS terrorists, but are happy to pronounce cyclists as the spawn of Satan, kicked outnof home because Daddy Devil couldn't handle us.

The sentiment is loud and largely unwarranted, and even the more respectable news sources are indulging today. Oddly, the only places where its been reported without the rabid mouth foaming is CNN and Fox News.


----------



## Biscuit (21 Sep 2017)

I have insurance via British Cycling, just for peace of mind. Only used it once for another cyclist riding into me then threatening to sue me for medical bills? Think he though he was in the US. I logged it all with the insurers. Never heard anything again, although I often still see the twat.


----------



## Tin Pot (21 Sep 2017)

In other news, 4 people were killed by a truck last week.

Time to urgently review motoring laws?


----------



## Tin Pot (21 Sep 2017)

[QUOTE 4965794, member: 9609"]we should all counter act it - start writing to your MP and police chiefs bemoaning how badly and uncaring we are treated by other road users. Its not much point complaining about it here, we all agree. Start demanding better laws and protection for cyclists now.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, why not?

Has someone put up a letter template on the net yet?

Something simple - not lovey dovey we are all road user crap that will let them force helmets on everyone.


----------



## mikeymustard (21 Sep 2017)

@Dogtrousers ouch! Stop sitting on the fence and say what you mean 
It's time we stopped putting up with it and started hitting people with sticks - that's the only language Johnny driver understands, being dim of wit as they are. 
I blame those foreigners myself - especially the Dutch and the Danes for living in a society that treats cyclists like the gods that we are.


----------



## mustang1 (21 Sep 2017)

I think the general public dislikes cyclists and the media, wanting to sell more advertising space, clings on to the kinda news that will sell. 

Its the same for computer "hackers", nerds, stuff the general population don't understand or want to be a part of. 

Now then, must dash and find my car keys as I have to go run on a treadmill.


----------



## srw (21 Sep 2017)

mustang1 said:


> I think the general public dislikes cyclists








A large proportion of the general public _is_ a cyclist. The rest of them know cyclists.


----------



## Spoked Wheels (21 Sep 2017)

I hear what you are saying but I blame the nutter cyclists that give us all a bad name. Every time I'm in London I feel that I need 3 or 4 sets of eyes cause some cyclist just have no regard for pedestrians.

I know only too well that riding in crowded areas is not easy. I 've had pedestrians stepping in front of me a few times and once I went over the bars in an attempt to avoid hitting the pedestrian.

On Bournemouth promenade there's a 10 km/h max speed for cyclist but some nutters ride so fast that it's frightening to think what would happen if a child got in their path.

On a personal level, I try to give pedestrians the same respect that I wish vehicles gave me as a cyclist.


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 Sep 2017)

I don't see what everyone is getting hot under the collar for. The proposal is simply to update the law from an archaic one passed in 1861 to something more relevant today and not some sort of discriminatory move against cyclists. Users of other vehicles have to put up with exactly the same type of legislation being proposed, and the fact that such accidents involving cyclists occur very rarely does not mean there should be nothing in place to deal with it.

The publicity the case got was mainly because of the attitude of the rider involved, bearing in mind he was riding an illegal bicycle and he flatly refused to accept any blame for it, even posting on social media that it was the unfortunate woman's fault. That was in contrast to Mr Briggs, the now widower of the lady who was interviewed today and gave a very positive thumbs up for cyclists and cycling in general, casting no aspersions at all on the rest of us. It takes a very big man to do that, most of us would be screaming for blood in this case. 

Yes, motorists often get off lightly after being at fault in a fatal accident, but eighteen months for causing a pedestrian's death because you are riding like an arrogant twat isn't exactly Great Train Robbers league either.


----------



## Tin Pot (21 Sep 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> I don't see what everyone is getting hot under the collar for.




Because They hate Us, and They outnumber Us, and the politicians believe the media reflect Them, and They're opinions.


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 Sep 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> Because They hate Us, and They outnumber Us, and the politicians believe the media reflect Them, and They're opinions.


Then again, you could just be paranoid.


----------



## pawl (21 Sep 2017)

Bikes are silent in motion.

Walking across the super market car park I was passed by an electric car did not her it approaching.lf I hadn't ,looked behind me I wouldn't have been aware of its approach
Moral pedestrians if you want to survive start to become aware of what is happening around you.
I am sure there are instructions in Highway Code covering pedestrians 
Probably a waste of time posting here,but can't find the equivalent forum for pedestrians 
The same problems can apply to us as cyclists as more of these silent cars become more prevalent.


----------



## mjr (21 Sep 2017)

mikeymustard said:


> I blame those foreigners myself - especially the Dutch and the Danes for living in a society that treats cyclists like the gods that we are.


The main difference between some places in North Zealand and places in England is that the Danes ensure the cycle lane created by painting a lane up the middle of a pavement actually connects to another one or merges back into the road sensibly. Other than that, shoot like https://www.instantstreetview.com/@55.988422,12.557118,233.23h,-24.76p,1z would be unsurprising in this country.



Spoked Wheels said:


> On Bournemouth promenade there's a 10 km/h max speed for cyclist


A km/h limit in this country, really? Secondly, that's not legally enforceable, is it?


----------



## mjr (21 Sep 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'm not particularly bothered by the proposed change to update the law. It's a reaction to a single, tragic, isolated case but it's not illogical.
> 
> I'm more interested in the growing anti cyclist sentiment, that underlies such a quick response to a single case, and understanding its origins. I have a couple of daft theories.
> 
> The fact that a significant percentage of the population knows a cyclist doesn't stop them from resenting the concept of cycling, even if "some of my best friends are cyclists, but ..."


I would bet on them not simply updating the law. There will be immense pressure to change the law and make it harsher on cyclists. This is a very shoot-filled can of worms for us.


----------



## Apollonius (21 Sep 2017)

Brexit
Trump
Now this

The lunatics are in complete control of the asylum and we are in trouble, I fear.


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 Sep 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'm not particularly bothered by the proposed change to update the law. It's a reaction to a single, tragic, isolated case but it's not illogical.


As I've said, the publicity occurred because this became more than just a case of someone on a bike colliding with a pedestrian directly because of the attitude of the cyclist himself. He turned himself into a walking tabloid headline.


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 Sep 2017)

User13710 said:


> If there is a 'growing anti cyclist sentiment' (and I'm not convinced, as round where I live there's a growing cycling culture), t*hen it could be being fuelled by people, some of them cyclists, feeling that the behaviour of one person while riding a bicycle somehow 'gives us all a bad name'*. When that applies to car drivers with the same monotony I'll treat it as a serious suggestion.


I can't see where anyone posted that?


----------



## Crackle (21 Sep 2017)

Isn't there an all parliamentary cycling group. I never quite know what the role of such groups are but they did hold hearings into the justice system regarding cyclists. i would hope the 2nd prong of this review looking into cycling safety references their inquiries but having only seen bits of reporting on the news today I'm not entirely certain yet what the frames of reference of that bit are.


----------



## Lonestar (21 Sep 2017)

Tank63 said:


> is it me or does the press hate cyclist.
> Watching the news they seem to hate bike users.



I can't say I really blame them.


----------



## mjr (21 Sep 2017)

Crackle said:


> Isn't there an all parliamentary cycling group. I never quite know what the role of such groups are but they did hold hearings into the justice system regarding cyclists. i would hope the 2nd prong of this review looking into cycling safety references their inquiries but having only seen bits of reporting on the news today I'm not entirely certain yet what the frames of reference of that bit are.


Yeah, or you know, they could stop wasting time and just implement the justice and cycling safety recommendations of the Get Britain Cycling report, many years late... but no, I'm sure they'll prefer to waste time repeating the hearings and so on, ideally to come out with different recommendations that cost less and don't get in the way of Mister Toad.


----------



## numbnuts (21 Sep 2017)

Spoked Wheels said:


> On Bournemouth promenade there's a 10 km/h max speed for cyclist but some nutters ride so fast that it's frightening to think what would happen if a child got in their path.


10 MPH not 10km/h
http://road.cc/content/news/4690-cameras-track-cycle-speeds-along-bournemouth-seafront


----------



## Spinney (21 Sep 2017)

One of the articles I read said, well below the headline, that the committee/enquiry would look into many aspects of road safety. The focus on just cyclists is just a media bias.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Sep 2017)

Spoked Wheels said:


> I hear what you are saying but I blame the nutter cyclists that give us all a bad name. Every time I'm in London I feel that I need 3 or 4 sets of eyes cause some cyclist just have no regard for pedestrians.
> 
> I know only too well that riding in crowded areas is not easy. I 've had pedestrians stepping in front of me a few times and once I went over the bars in an attempt to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
> 
> ...


They drive the same way. They're dicks.


----------



## classic33 (21 Sep 2017)

pawl said:


> Bikes are silent in motion.
> 
> Walking across the super market car park I was passed by an electric car did not her it approaching.lf I hadn't ,looked behind me I wouldn't have been aware of its approach
> Moral pedestrians if you want to survive start to become aware of what is happening around you.
> ...


 Pedestrian Forum


----------



## Roadhump (21 Sep 2017)

I just found this on the BBC website. I think it could be quite interesting if cyclists did have to take a test to ride on the road, and all adhered to taking Primary position in situations when that increases visibility and safety, and also to the bullet points under the photo of Boris. Most of the abuse I have had from car drivers is when I have taken Primary in such situations. Another thing Bikeability teaches is the pros and cons of cycling infrastructure (cycle lanes) and that they can make cycling more difficult and even more dangerous; riding off cycle tracks is another thing that has brought me abuse from motorists (even when they have been blocked by vehicles - local authority vehicles on one occasion).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41346237

Go for it I say. Have key elements of Bikeability built into a compulsory theory exam for the driving test as well (it is already taught to goods and passenger vehicle drivers under Safer Urban Driving, and is generally well received and often considered enlightening), we may all get along a bit better then.


----------



## srw (21 Sep 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> There's another agenda at work here


Sympathy with a bereaved husband and the desire to be seen to do _something_.


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Sympathy with a bereaved husband and the desire to be seen to do _something_.


All they are doing is bringing an ancient law up to date. It isn't going to have any negative effect on cycling or cyclists unless you kill or injure someone due to your careless or dangerous riding.

We know that a small section of motorists would like to see us off the roads just as they's like to see motorcycles banned, but it won't happen and there is no need for the knee jerk paranoia we sometimes get here every time cycling gets other than a glowing report.


----------



## mjr (21 Sep 2017)

Roadhump said:


> I just found this on the BBC website. I think it could be quite interesting if cyclists did have to take a test to ride on the road,


Interesting, but incredibly harmful to children who would suddenly be trapped on the obstacle courses which too many councils think is acceptable off-road provision?



Roadhump said:


> riding off cycle tracks is another thing that has brought me abuse from motorists (even when they have been blocked by vehicles - local authority vehicles on one occasion).


Amen. Some of the worst abuse I've ever had was when I'd left a cycle track on the direction of the police because motorists had come to rest across it after crashing. Fortunately, the nobber driving the 4x4 chose to abuse me in plain sight and earshot of the police  I guess they were so fixated on punishing me they completely failed to spot the huge hi-vis police car.


----------



## mjr (21 Sep 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> All they are doing is bringing an ancient law up to date.


You keep claiming that, but what's the source for it? They could be doing almost anything under the description of "whether dangerous cyclists should face the same consequences [as dangerous drivers]." (Jesse Norman, BBC interview)


----------



## srw (21 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> You keep claiming that, but what's the source for it? They could be doing almost anything under the description of "whether dangerous cyclists should face the same consequences [as dangerous drivers]." (Jesse Norman, BBC interview)


The likeliest is that nothing will happen. There just isn't the legislative room for anything remotely controversial.


----------



## GuyBoden (21 Sep 2017)

With more silent electric cars and more silent cyclists, maybe it's time for the Green Cross Code on TV again.


----------



## Jenkins (21 Sep 2017)

Roadhump said:


> I just found this on the BBC website. I think it could be quite interesting if cyclists did have to take a test to ride on the road, and all adhered to taking Primary position in situations when that increases visibility and safety, and also to the bullet points under the photo of Boris. Most of the abuse I have had from car drivers is when I have taken Primary in such situations. Another thing Bikeability teaches is the pros and cons of cycling infrastructure (cycle lanes) and that they can make cycling more difficult and even more dangerous; riding off cycle tracks is another thing that has brought me abuse from motorists (even when they have been blocked by vehicles - local authority vehicles on one occasion).
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41346237
> 
> Go for it I say. Have key elements of Bikeability built into a compulsory theory exam for the driving test as well (it is already taught to goods and passenger vehicle drivers under Safer Urban Driving, and is generally well received and often considered enlightening), we may all get along a bit better then.


Does thjis mean I'll have to dig out my Cycling Proficiency certificate and carry it around like a diving licence or will wearing the badge be sufficient?


----------



## srw (22 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> The likeliest is that nothing will happen. There just isn't the legislative room for anything remotely controversial.


Of course it's not impossible that a sensible Shadow Transport Secretary could offer to support a couple of minor and reasonably cosmetic changes to cycling law in return for the government actually making progress with tightening up driving law. The current Shadow secretary is apparently an ex-PI injury lawyer, so his bias will be towards victims rather than towards drivers (and his website suggest he's still biassed that way). Unfortunately he's also been involved with Headway according to wikipedia, so might have some strange ideas about the effectiveness of bike helmets.

Perhaps one of our Labour members could get their constituency reps to get a motion at conference next week?


----------



## Banjo (22 Sep 2017)

Am I right in thinking Alleston would not have been convicted if he had a front brake?

A couple of years ago a boy stepped out in front of a van close to my house .

The boy died at the scene .Van driver was not charged presumably because his van was in safe and legal condition.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (22 Sep 2017)

Spoked Wheels said:


> I hear what you are saying but I blame the nutter cyclists that give us all a bad name.


The "cyclists that give the rest of us a bad name" trope raises its head with all too depressing frequency, I've noticed. No, they don't give the rest of us a bad name, because they don't represent us in any way, any more than the nutter motorists give all other motorists a bad name, or the occasional loony pedestrian somehow stains the reputation of all pedestrians. This is simply a case of outgroup homogeneity.


----------



## oldstrath (22 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> Sympathy with a bereaved husband and the desire to be seen to do _something_.


Hundreds are bereaved every year by car drivers and ignored, not given time on every available media outlet and praised to high heaven by the PM and senior rozzers. Briggs is a useful tool for those who wish to restrict cycling, and cheerfully complicit in it for his own goal of vengeance for his wife's accidental death.


----------



## winjim (22 Sep 2017)

Interesting discussion over on twitter at the moment. Ben Goldacre is clearly angry and is tweeting a series of news stories in which killer drivers get light sentences, while the Secret Barrister urges restraint and for him to treat bad legal reporting as he would bad science reporting.


----------



## Smokin Joe (22 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> Briggs is a useful tool for those who wish to restrict cycling, and cheerfully complicit in it for his own goal of vengeance for his wife's accidental death.


I heard Briggs interviewed yesterday. He is the exact opposite of the person you describe, articulate, reasonable and in no way out for any sort of revenge. He thought the increase in cycling was for the common good, both in environmental and congestion grounds and had nothing against cyclists as a group. All he was asking for is the law to be updated from the original 1861 act which is no longer fit for purpose. This knee jerk reaction against anyone who is not gushing in praise for everyone who rides a bike no matter what they do with it is both childish and pathetic.


----------



## snorri (22 Sep 2017)

Lonestar said:


> I can't say I really blame them.


Why should the press hate cyclists?


----------



## KnackeredBike (22 Sep 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> This knee jerk reaction against anyone who is not gushing in praise for everyone who rides a bike no matter what they do with it is both childish and pathetic.


His own reaction is knee jerk, however articulate he is his ultimate aim is to have more cyclists prosecuted more easily.

And as has already been said on here, it is not only focusing on a group that causes almost no problems, but a group that are killed and seriously injured by careless and dangerous motorists dozens of times every day.

We don't make laws to cover every conceivable wrong because almost always, as here, there is a more general law that can be used. Why would you waste precious parliamentary time on a problem that affects almost no-one.


----------



## Johnno260 (22 Sep 2017)

The news likes to demonise something, seems it's cyclists turn.

I can't count the amount of times I have defended cyclists in the past month.

The office I work in I get daily grief for being a cyclist, they insist we need to be taxed, and I can't make them see if they tax a cyclist, it will cost the general tax payer to legislate for something that will bring in zero income.

I said I have paid my right as a tax payer to use the roads with the VAT on my bike, clothing and maintenance.


----------



## Paulus (22 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> A km/h limit in this country, really? Secondly, that's not legally enforceable, is it?


From November 2014--
*BBC presenter Jeremy Vine caught speeding on his bike*
*Broadcaster Jeremy Vine has been stopped by police in London's Hyde Park for speeding on his bicycle.*

*The BBC Radio 2 presenter said he had been caught travelling at 16mph (25km/h) in a 5mph (8km/h) zone.*

*He apologised after an officer tracked his speed using a radar gun, but seemed not to agree with the speed limit.*


----------



## oldstrath (22 Sep 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> I heard Briggs interviewed yesterday. He is the exact opposite of the person you describe, articulate, reasonable and in no way out for any sort of revenge. He thought the increase in cycling was for the common good, both in environmental and congestion grounds and had nothing against cyclists as a group. All he was asking for is the law to be updated from the original 1861 act which is no longer fit for purpose. This knee jerk reaction against anyone who is not gushing in praise for everyone who rides a bike no matter what they do with it is both childish and pathetic.



In what way us the 1861 act " not fit for purpose"? Alliston breached it was convicted, and has been sentenced. What else must happen? 

He clearly is articulate and reasonable sounding. I don't doubt that he is an intelligent man, nor do I doubt that he is grieving. But I do believe he is strongly motivated by a desire to blame someone or something, probably understandably, and that, whatever he says, or indeed believes, his campaign will be part of a process that will reduce cycling rates in this country.

No, I don't expect him, or anyone, to refrain from criticising Alliston and others who ride in the same way. But blaming all cyclists for what a few idiots do helps nothing.


----------



## Paulus (22 Sep 2017)

I couldn't see that bit.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Sep 2017)

srw said:


> The likeliest is that nothing will happen. There just isn't the legislative room for anything remotely controversial.


Legislation via proclamation?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> In what way us the 1861 act " not fit for purpose"? Alliston breached it was convicted, and has been sentenced. What else must happen?
> 
> He clearly is articulate and reasonable sounding. I don't doubt that he is an intelligent man, nor do I doubt that he is grieving. But I do believe he is strongly motivated by a desire to blame someone or something, probably understandably, and that, whatever he says, or indeed believes, his campaign will be part of a process that will reduce cycling rates in this country.
> 
> No, I don't expect him, or anyone, to refrain from criticising Alliston and others who ride in the same way. But blaming all cyclists for what a few idiots do helps nothing.


In what way is Briggs blaming all cyclists?


----------



## adscrim (22 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> But blaming all cyclists for what a few idiots do helps nothing.


I see it as a concentration and consequence issue. The concentration of persons likely to act recklessly, I believe, is the same across all modes of transport. It would appear more of them don't fear the consequences when on specific modes (bikes?). I don't think it helps that my experience of 'reckless' cycling behaviour is more blatant than by motorists. Where you have motorists running reds by not stopping on amber, you have cyclists running reds while all the other traffic is stationary (not actually that many, but because everyone else going that way at those lights is sitting still, they stand out more). Motorist accepts the first but wouldn't do the second despite them essentially being the same thing. 

When you add in the current climate of hate the media seems to be pushing and the constant presence of hate for someone that manages to get somewhere quicker than someone else and it's a bit of a perfect storm for anyone that chooses to ride a bike.


----------



## winjim (22 Sep 2017)

Here is the Secret Barrister's take on things. Seems to be broadly in favour of a review of the law. I don't think I agree about the issue of culpability though, and the bell is maybe a bit of an irrelevance.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/20/some-thoughts-on-charlie-alliston-and-death-on-the-roads/


----------



## oldstrath (22 Sep 2017)

winjim said:


> Here is the Secret Barrister's take on things. Seems to be broadly in favour of a review of the law. I don't think I agree about the issue of culpability though, and the bell is maybe a bit of an irrelevance.
> 
> https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/20/some-thoughts-on-charlie-alliston-and-death-on-the-roads/


Still no attempt to address the issue that cyclists would be tried by a jury with little relevant experience.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (22 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> Still no attempt to address the issue that cyclists would be tried by a jury with little relevant experience.


That's exactly how it is right now. 

It worries me greatly, particularly when the reaction from a police officer (taking a statement about my latest close pass) to me cycling to work every day was a shocked intake of breath, as though it was somehow reckless regard for my own safety. That's not an uncommon view, and if it's present within the people who are supposed to look after us, it'll be there in the general public from which jury members are picked.

They, just like that cop, view the things that cycling on our busy roads normally entail as being risks that we bring upon ourselves. Riding centrally in the lane, for example, attracts criticism and surprise because its safety benefit is not understood by those who don't regularly ride. This gives us juries of people who recoil from cycling as a viable means of daily transport and instead regard it as a hazardous undertaking that the rider voluntarily exposes himself to. It'll be 'your own fault' when things go wrong and a driver hits you. He'll be judged as though they were in his shoes and not yours. Throw in the clichés of hi-vis and helmets and it only gets worse.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> Still no attempt to address the issue that cyclists would be tried by a jury with little relevant experience.


That really isn't what the idea of a jury of your peers is about. If a woman in an abusive relationship harms her abuser should the jury be made up of people who share her experience, or his?


----------



## EasyPeez (22 Sep 2017)

Shut Up Legs said:


> The "cyclists that give the rest of us a bad name" trope raises its head with all too depressing frequency, I've noticed. No, they don't give the rest of us a bad name, because they don't represent us in any way



While your point is perfectly sensible and logical, the world and the people within are not always so. 

You honestly believe that poor/contentious behaviour by one member or group from within a subset of society, and the consequent media reporting thereof, has no bearing on the rest of that subset, in terms of how the rest of society perceives and behaves towards them? An altered perception of the whole subset based on an isolated incident or collection of incidents might be illogical, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

If you don't believe me, try talking to anyone who was part of a mining community in the 80s. Or a football supporter post-Heysel. Or an MP post-expenses scandal. Or a Muslim post-9/11. Or....


----------



## captain nemo1701 (22 Sep 2017)

The Bristol Post has been demonising us for years. A recent article on their website was regarding a cycle path along by Temple Meads station that has been shut off temporarily with concrete blocks as they are redesigning the junction at the end. They have put up blue advisory 'Cyclists dismount' signs at both ends although if you ask me, since no-one is working on the cycle path itself, they aren't needed at the eastern end. 

The Bristol Post ran an article about 'Cyclists told to dismount' etc which suggested, reading in between the lines, that we are breaking the law by not dismounting. But then the article went on to say that the signs are purely advisory and anyone not dismounting was in no way breaking the law.

So what was the point of writing an article about _*non-law*_ breaking??.

Oh, yeah, it's to prod all their thicko readership (one rung below the Daily Wail) into reacting.....silly me


----------



## Spoked Wheels (22 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> The main difference between some places in North Zealand and places in England is that the Danes ensure the cycle lane created by painting a lane up the middle of a pavement actually connects to another one or merges back into the road sensibly. Other than that, shoot like https://www.instantstreetview.com/@55.988422,12.557118,233.23h,-24.76p,1z would be unsurprising in this country.
> 
> 
> A km/h limit in this country, really? Secondly, that's not legally enforceable, is it?



Sorry, I meant miles per hour.

Not legally enforceable, is it? Sorry but that is the attitude that give cyclists a bad name. I mean if I ignore the speed limit couse I can get away with it then we are not making any friends with pedestrians.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Sep 2017)

EasyPeez said:


> You honestly believe that poor/contentious behaviour by one member or group from within a subset of society, and the consequent media reporting thereof, has no bearing on the rest of that subset, in terms of how the rest of society perceives and behaves towards them?


Does poor/contentious behaviour by one member or group from within a subset of society, and the consequent media reporting thereof, have any bearing on the rest of that subset, in terms of how _*you*_ perceive and behave towards them?

If yes, get a grip and sort yourself out.
If no, credit other people with having as much sense as you have.


----------



## mjr (22 Sep 2017)

Spoked Wheels said:


> Not legally enforceable, is it? Sorry but that is the attitude that give cyclists a bad name. I mean if I ignore the speed limit couse I can get away with it then we are not making any friends with pedestrians.


What's giving cyclists a bad name is troll councils putting up signs which have no legal effect and mainly serve to cause conflict. I don't see why pedestrians care what speed people do as long as it's not fast anywhere near them.

You wouldn't be ignoring any speed limit because there is no speed limit. The highway authority has exceeded its powers by posting such a limit (and it's not a royal park so please let's not go into them again), and is acting in a manner that is likely to discourage cycling, and in that case I think it's a county council, so it's contrary to their public health duties. Fine that council for being nobbers.

If there's a problem with reckless cyclists, then deal with them. There are laws for that already. It doesn't need speed limit signs or new laws to set speed limits or anything of that nonsense. Let's not accept councils posting bullshit signs that just make matters worse instead of actually dealing with a problem - except I strongly suspect the problem isn't as bad as claimed by newspapers that scour areas for every available rumour of an incident and report all the Chinese whispers about how Janet three doors down lost both legs after being run over by a MTBer with razor blades on their disc brake rotors (in reality, Janet saw an MTB on the other side of the prom and liked its paintwork).

Just to ice the cake, Bournemouth has a freaking extra-long minibus ("land train") revving up and down that so-called promenade, belching out fumes, with flashing lights and a whistle telling pedestrians to get out of the farking way, doesn't it? People on bikes should be the least of the worries.


----------



## oldstrath (22 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> That really isn't what the idea of a jury of your peers is about. If a woman in an abusive relationship harms her abuser should the jury be made up of people who share her experience, or his?


By default, most juries hearing driving offences will have substantial current experience of driving. You think this makes no difference? Any attempt at equal treatment would require juries of cyclists surely?


----------



## growingvegetables (22 Sep 2017)

Oh lordy. http://road.cc/content/news/229656-...sts-follow-highway-code…-well-he-asks-leaders. Wota****.

"Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign tweeted the letter today, commenting: “Unprecedented ministerial action after 2 cycle related deaths. Awaiting 750 times this much effort to address the 1500+ motor-related deaths.”


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Sep 2017)

oldstrath said:


> By default, most juries hearing driving offences will have substantial current experience of driving. You think this makes no difference? Any attempt at equal treatment would require juries of cyclists surely?


By default most juries in theft trials are composed of people who aren't scrotes and may well include people who have been the victims of scrotes. Any attempt at equal treatment would require juries of scrotes surely?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> The main difference between some places in North Zealand and places in England is that the Danes ensure the cycle lane created by painting a lane up the middle of a pavement actually connects to another one or merges back into the road sensibly. Other than that, shoot like https://www.instantstreetview.com/@55.988422,12.557118,233.23h,-24.76p,1z would be unsurprising in this country.


I've ridden that several times. Shoot it ain't. Because Danish society respects the choice of those who cycle, because nearly every able bodied citizen cycles, what you call shoot works brilliantly. What would be shoot in our context isn't in theirs. But it ain't perfect, get on the lanes, where there is no special cycling provision and there is plenty of car vs bike conflict. In the towns and cities there's a fiar bit of bike v bike conflict peak hours. But woe betide the Danish driver who acts like a dick near cyclists peak hours in cph. Quite likely to get door kicked, mirrors removed and a good tongue lashing from a gang of angry women.


----------



## KnackeredBike (22 Sep 2017)

@glasgowcyclist I have posted before working in A&E taking police handovers if it's a cyclist (or motorcyclist) they are always at fault or they were asking for it cycling where/when they were.

If its a driver, except drink drivers, it is always a tragic accident, either the conditions or dangerous road or some other excuse.

My favourite was a cyclist where someone dropped something on them from a bridge onto a cycle path, and still the police thought the cyclist was probably going too fast based on them saying they saw it at the last minute.

And these are the people we are trusting to accurately record and investigate collisions.


----------



## Dan B (22 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> By default most juries in theft trials are composed of people who aren't scrotes and may well include people who have been the victims of scrotes. Any attempt at equal treatment would require juries of scrotes surely?


Well, yes, I think that's the point. Juries in burglary trials are likely to relate to victims, in driving crimes more likely to relate to the perpetrator


----------



## growingvegetables (22 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> That really isn't what the idea of a jury of your peers is about. If a woman in an abusive relationship harms her abuser should the jury be made up of people who share her experience, or his?


There's a wee bit of a wrinkle though.

"By "dangerous" we mean within the meaning of section 2A of the RTA 1988, i.e. the standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would* be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous*." My bold - the call to the driver's peer drivers to rely on* their* perceptions of *their* safety and competence? There, in a nutshell ... the "there but for the grace of God ..." get-out clause.

If you'll allow me to tweak your analogy? In careless/dangerous driving cases, it's choosing a jury of abusers? 

Not a pleasant thought.


----------



## PK99 (22 Sep 2017)

Dan B said:


> Well, yes, I think that's the point. Juries in burglary trials are likely to relate to victims, in driving crimes more likely to relate to the perpetrator



I interesting you refer to one as trials and the other as crimes. unconscious bias on your part?


----------



## XC26 (22 Sep 2017)

All this is getting me down. The more I read, the more disturbing it appears to be for cyclists. I've just read about the case of a young cyclist who died after a collision with a pedestrian in March this year. As is to be expected, the Daily Mail appears to misrepresent the facts and the readers' comments are disgusting. ..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4858530/Cyclist-died-running-pedestrian.html

The facts are probably best obtained here ...

http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.u...n-accomplished-cheltenham-cyclist-dies-436755

Finally, I was astounted to read that the poor deceased cyclist could have been prosecuted... 

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/l...estrian-may-faced-prosecution-survived-352117


----------



## Dan B (22 Sep 2017)

PK99 said:


> I interesting you refer to one as trials and the other as crimes. unconscious bias on your part?


If it is, I'm not conscious of it. Bad editing because posting on phone may also play a part


----------



## KnackeredBike (22 Sep 2017)

What I always find is also neglected in these car vs bike fatalities is that we have cities which are *entirely set up for motor vehicles* and their safety and swift egress.

This creates two of the biggest pedestrian/cyclist conflicts, namely traffic lights, of which there are *so many examples showing junctions work much better for cyclists when they are turned off*, and also allowing parked vehicles to line roads reducing visibility - which contributed to the CA incident.

I'm not sure that shared space is the answer everywhere, but undoubtedly cities designed where people rather than rules and lights decide priority, and where traffic speeds are lower, would reduce cycling injuries and also almost certainly injuries caused by motor vehicles. I've said before, to some unpopularity, the reason why some cyclists ignore red lights at junctions (not crossings) is because they don't benefit from them, they are solely for the benefit of motorists.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (22 Sep 2017)

EasyPeez said:


> While your point is perfectly sensible and logical, the world and the people within are not always so.
> 
> You honestly believe that poor/contentious behaviour by one member or group from within a subset of society, and the consequent media reporting thereof, has no bearing on the rest of that subset, in terms of how the rest of society perceives and behaves towards them? An altered perception of the whole subset based on an isolated incident or collection of incidents might be illogical, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
> 
> If you don't believe me, try talking to anyone who was part of a mining community in the 80s. Or a football supporter post-Heysel. Or an MP post-expenses scandal. Or a Muslim post-9/11. Or....


Your post just agreed with mine. That outgroup homogeneity I mentioned accounts for everything you just mentioned.

But just because people are affected by this doesn't mean we should just roll over and put up with it. I never miss the opportunity to remind people that holding all cyclists accountable for the actions of one is wrong, illogical and prejudiced.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Sep 2017)

Dan B said:


> Well, yes, I think that's the point. Juries in burglary trials are likely to relate to victims, in driving crimes more likely to relate to the perpetrator


There you have it. The norms in our society, like it or not, mean folk identify with those who kill and maim in motor vehicles.

That's the farked-up world we live in.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Sep 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> There's a wee bit of a wrinkle though.
> 
> "By "dangerous" we mean within the meaning of section 2A of the RTA 1988, i.e. the standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would* be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous*." My bold - the call to the driver's peer drivers to rely on* their* perceptions of *their* safety and competence? There, in a nutshell ... the "there but for the grace of God ..." get-out clause.
> 
> ...


You assume the jury is made of competent and careful drivers, capable of judging what competent amd careful driving looks like. I don't. 75% of em are unconscious drivers doing it by rote with most of their consciousness otherwise occupied. They rely on everyone else playing nicely to get by.

See invisible gorillas et al.

And here's a thing, a real kicker too. What competent amd careful looks like around other steel boxes is completely different to what competent and careful looks like when said steel box is near a cyclist or pedestrian.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> What I always find is also neglected in these car vs bike fatalities is that we have cities which are *entirely set up for motor vehicles* and their safety and swift egress.
> 
> This creates two of the biggest pedestrian/cyclist conflicts, namely traffic lights, of which there are *so many examples showing junctions work much better for cyclists when they are turned off*, and also allowing parked vehicles to line roads reducing visibility - which contributed to the CA incident.
> 
> I'm not sure that shared space is the answer everywhere, but undoubtedly cities designed where people rather than rules and lights decide priority, and where traffic speeds are lower, would reduce cycling injuries and also almost certainly injuries caused by motor vehicles. I've said before, to some unpopularity, the reason why some cyclists ignore red lights at junctions (not crossings) is because they don't benefit from them, they are solely for the benefit of motorists.


except in cities, like cph, where cyclists have dedicated traffic lights to benefit them, some egotistical farkwit nobber twat cyclists ignore red lights.

Because ego driven nobber twats do what their twattish nobber egos compel them to do.


----------



## growingvegetables (23 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> You assume the jury is made of competent and careful drivers, capable of judging what competent amd careful driving looks like. ...



A lot of the jury will think that of themselves.


----------



## Flick of the Elbow (23 Sep 2017)

Govt, local authorities, the police & judiciary, the press, juries, and most of the public are united in their attitude of "It's only a cyclist".
When a cyclist is killed or seriously injured they couldn't care less, it's only a cyclist.
When as a pedestrian or motorist they see a cyclist coming towards them they feel quite ok about stepping out/driving into their path because it's only a cyclist.
When presented with cyclists' concerns about dangerous road layouts, aggressive driving attitudes, lorry designs where the driver literally can't see what's straight under their nose, they are happy to ignore us because we're only cyclists.
But the minute someone they see as one of their own is killed in an accident with a cyclist, their actions and words are immediate. They disgust me.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (23 Sep 2017)

Flick of the Elbow said:


> Govt, local authorities, the police & judiciary, the press, juries, and most of the public are united in their attitude of "It's only a cyclist".
> When a cyclist is killed or seriously injured they couldn't care less, it's only a cyclist.
> When as a pedestrian or motorist they see a cyclist coming towards them they feel quite ok about stepping out/driving into their path because it's only a cyclist.
> When presented with cyclists' concerns about dangerous road layouts, aggressive driving attitudes, lorry designs where the driver literally can't see what's straight under their nose, they are happy to ignore us because we're only cyclists.
> But the minute someone they see as one of their own is killed in an accident with a cyclist, their actions and words are immediate. They disgust me.


I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, Australia is the same in this respect.  I never wanted to leave France after my recent Alps & Pyrenees cycling trip, and I felt the same after last year's trip.


----------



## EasyPeez (23 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Does poor/contentious behaviour by one member or group from within a subset of society, and the consequent media reporting thereof, have any bearing on the rest of that subset, in terms of how _*you*_ perceive and behave towards them?
> 
> If yes, get a grip and sort yourself out.
> If no, credit other people with having as much sense as you have.[/Q





GrumpyGregry said:


> credit other people with having as much sense as you have.



Haha...given that we both live in a country that has voted for Brexit, has a Conservative government, and boasts The Sun as it's biggest selling newspaper, I'll pass on that, ta.


----------



## EasyPeez (23 Sep 2017)

Shut Up Legs said:


> Your post just agreed with mine. That outgroup homogeneity I mentioned accounts for everything you just mentioned.
> 
> But just because people are affected by this doesn't mean we should just roll over and put up with it. I never miss the opportunity to remind people that holding all cyclists accountable for the actions of one is wrong, illogical and prejudiced.



I completely agree. Whether in relation to cycling or any other aspect of life, associating the many with the misdemeanours of the few needs to be challenged. It's understandable (and maybe even natural, as a carry over from more reptilian self-preservation instincts?) but not logical or fair. But in my experience it is still a prevalent human tendency.


----------



## Simontm (24 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> @glasgowcyclist I have posted before working in A&E taking police handovers if it's a cyclist (or motorcyclist) they are always at fault or they were asking for it cycling where/when they were.
> 
> If its a driver, except drink drivers, it is always a tragic accident, either the conditions or dangerous road or some other excuse.
> 
> ...


When a young driver turned right across a bus lane and I ended up bouncing off his windscreen and bonnet, the police constantly asked me if I had slowed down when I saw him. I said well obviously hitting a car not paying attention to a cyclist in a lane will inevitably slow me down.


----------

