# Cycling laws to be overhauled.



## Slick (12 Aug 2018)

I know this has been discussed before, but according to BBC breakfast the government are looking for suggestions on the way forward to modernise cycling law. There was a girl there trying to argue that it was transport laws as a whole that need updating but I'm not sure if she was making herself heard. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45154708


----------



## Apollonius (12 Aug 2018)

Very disappointed at the cluelessness of Sally Nugent today. Went happily along with the anti-cyclist theme and was so poorly prepared she thought that the woman who was killed by the guy with no brakes was a cyclist. Nobody raised the elephant in the room of the pedestrians killed by powered transport. 
When this revision of legislation was first raised, one idea was that the "causing death by dangerous cycling" scrap of meat was to be thrown in as a balance to tightening up on close passes etc. Looks like that is getting lost.
The reality is that cyclists are so little nuisance and danger on the roads that the laws have not needed to be revised.


----------



## Big Andy (12 Aug 2018)

I struggle to see how anyone can have a problem with the proposals. Whether laws need tightening up for motorised transport is another issue altogether.


----------



## theclaud (12 Aug 2018)

Big Andy said:


> I struggle to see how anyone can have a problem with the proposals. Whether laws need tightening up for motorised transport is another issue altogether.


It isn't though, is it? If you're looking to legislate to make the roads safer, you need to focus on where the danger is coming from.


----------



## night cycler (12 Aug 2018)

Is one of the problems that *we* are still a minority compared to the rest of the popualation that don`t cycle.


----------



## Apollonius (12 Aug 2018)

Fair point, but the fact that the cyclist who was held responsible for the death of the woman was only prosecuted under an ancient law does indicate that some updating is needed. I believe a similar thing applies to the law relating to cycling on the footway. As far as I know, the only law relating is one from 1866 and refers to velocipedes. 

Still the point remains that an irresponsible operator of a powered vehicle is a much greater danger to life and limb that an irresponsible cyclist. The casualty figures prove this. Indeed, I believe that statistically more third-party people are hurt by mobility scooters than cyclists. I don't hear an outcry about that.


----------



## night cycler (12 Aug 2018)

Apollonius said:


> Fair point, but the fact that the cyclist who was held responsible for the death of the woman was only prosecuted under an ancient law does indicate that some updating is needed. I believe a similar thing applies to the law relating to cycling on the footway. As far as I know, the only law relating is one from 1866 and refers to velocipedes.
> 
> Still the point remains that an *irresponsible operator* of a powered vehicle is a much greater danger to life and limb that an irresponsible cyclist. The casualty figures prove this. Indeed, I believe that statistically more third-party people are hurt by mobility scooters than cyclists. I don't hear an outcry about that.


----------



## Lonestar (12 Aug 2018)

Got to agree.If a cyclist cycles like an idiot generally they'd be their own worst enemy.

Hope they decide to clamp down on the motorists as well but I doubt they will.

What was it 448 peds killed and three by cyclists (allegedly).

I see some bad cycling not as bad as the dangerous driving I see.Total disregard mobile phone use/drugs/general bad driving couldn't give a toss/in too much of a hurry/MGIF/Bullying.Lack of braincells not capable of reading ahead.Poor concentration.


----------



## Slick (12 Aug 2018)

Apollonius said:


> Very disappointed at the cluelessness of Sally Nugent today. Went happily along with the anti-cyclist theme and was so poorly prepared she thought that the woman who was killed by the guy with no brakes was a cyclist. Nobody raised the elephant in the room of the pedestrians killed by powered transport.
> When this revision of legislation was first raised, one idea was that the "causing death by dangerous cycling" scrap of meat was to be thrown in as a balance to tightening up on close passes etc. Looks like that is getting lost.
> The reality is that cyclists are so little nuisance and danger on the roads that the laws have not needed to be revised.


I must admit, Sallys gaffe was a bit embarrassing although the husband did take it in his stride. 

I was also willing that girl to throw the actual stats into the mix as to who was more likely to kill a pedestrian or anyone for that matter.


----------



## Big Andy (12 Aug 2018)

theclaud said:


> It isn't though, is it? If you're looking to legislate to make the roads safer, you need to focus on where the danger is coming from.


2 separate issues. There is however no reason why both cannot be tackled.


----------



## Drago (12 Aug 2018)

I ain't got a problem with it - people that behave like twots should be dealt with accordingly, regardless of their mode of transport. Just because some other sector of society may also be a naughty now and again is no reason not to do it - that's the school playground level of logic.

I ride sensibly and in accordance with the rules and laws of the road, so it doesn't affect me.


----------



## Lonestar (12 Aug 2018)

Drago said:


> I ain't got a problem with it - people that behave like twots should be dealt with accordingly, regardless of their mode of transport. Just because some other sector of society may also be a naughty now and again is no reason not to do it - that's the school playground level of logic.
> 
> I ride sensibly and in accordance with the rules and laws of the road, so it doesn't affect me.



I ride on the CS 2 CS 3 CS 7 and E/W route and backstreets/main road....It does affect me.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2018)

Apollonius said:


> Fair point, but the fact that the cyclist who was held responsible for the death of the woman was only prosecuted under an ancient law does indicate that some updating is needed. I believe a similar thing applies to the law relating to cycling on the footway. As far as I know, the only law relating is one from 1866 and refers to velocipedes.


1870s I think and it refers to driving carriages, which was generalised to include cycling when it first appeared, providing a logical and unsurprising norm. What's age got to do with it? The law that makes us drive on the left comes from the 1830s IIRC and no one bleats about that needing redoing, save for a few who want us to switch to right hand. This all seems like a massive red herring to beat down those freaks who dare to integrate physical activity into their lives and improve their health and wealth.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2018)

Drago said:


> I ain't got a problem with it - people that behave like twots should be dealt with accordingly, regardless of their mode of transport. Just because some other sector of society may also be a naughty now and again is no reason not to do it - that's the school playground level of logic.
> 
> I ride sensibly and in accordance with the rules and laws of the road, so it doesn't affect me.


Maybe the Drago estate is so vast you don't have to interact with motorists who believe this shoot, but I doubt it. It will affect you a bit.

What part of the successful conviction of Alliston do you feel this law would change? If it achieves the same as the motoring offences, it'll actually reduce the typical charges and maximum penalties... but cycling causes so few crashes deadly to others that it'll take years to tell and this bunch of bike bashers in government will be retired, dead or both, so probably never held to account for it.


----------



## PeteXXX (12 Aug 2018)

Should the review of the law be widened further to include peds that walk in front of a cyclist, causing the rider to fall of and be injured?


----------



## Slick (12 Aug 2018)

One of the comments after the piece this morning was that cyclists are answerable to no one. If one of the changes comes from this is some form of registration then it will affect everyone, but it will be too late to do anything about it.


----------



## chriswoody (12 Aug 2018)

[QUOTE 5346494, member: 43827"]Roads are a shared space and responsibility for safety must be shared.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, what British needs to seriously look into is presumed liability. Britian is one of the few countries to not have this as far as I recall. 

Here in Germany, if a Car knocks me off my bike, then their presumed to be at fault and the onus is on them to prove otherwise. The same law also applies if I send a pedestrian flying through my cycling, the onus being on me to prove that the pedestrian was at fault.

It's quite noticeable the overall efforts that people go to at times to be aware of their surroundings and act accordingly. It's not some magic panacea though and like everything it has its faults, but if Britian really wants to get serious about increasing cycle use then I feel that this is something that should be looked into and change everyone's attitude on the road.


----------



## Paulus (12 Aug 2018)

Slick said:


> One of the comments after the piece this morning was that cyclists are answerable to no one. If one of the changes comes from this is some form of registration then it will affect everyone, but it will be too late to do anything about it.


Cyclists are surely answerable to the police as much as any other road user? I do smile when the registration question rears it's head. At what age would a cyclist need to be registered? As soon as a child learns to ride a bike aged 3 or 4, would it go on bike size, or as soon as the rider can go on the road, which brings me back to the age of the rider?


----------



## Phaeton (12 Aug 2018)

Laws are worthless without the infrastructure to enact them, one of the reasons I believe there is so much bad driving these days apart from the entitlement that everybody feels that they should be allowed to or not, whether they are fit & capable of doing it is there is no Policing of it. My commute is 36 round trip, I very very rarely see a Police car, the only exception is with blues & two's going somewhere, not just general Policing.

You can make the law as tight as you want, but if nobody is going to stop people breaking the law it may as well not be there.


----------



## Slick (12 Aug 2018)

Paulus said:


> Cyclists are surely answerable to the police as much as any other road user? I do smile when the registration question rears it's head. At what age would a cyclist need to be registered? As soon as a child learns to ride a bike aged 3 or 4, would it go on bike size, or as soon as the rider can go on the road, which brings me back to the age of the rider?


It wasn't my comment but a common misconception. I think their point is when a driver does something wrong they are immediately identifiable whereas cyclists are not.


----------



## Phaeton (12 Aug 2018)

[QUOTE 5346560, member: 9609"]I think as far as traffic goes, the police have given up. Apart from attending accidents they now don't bother with traffic laws[/QUOTE]Agreed so why bother making tighter rules which are just going to be flouted as much as existing ones are, the only people who will gain are the lawyers drafting them with their fees


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Laws are worthless without the infrastructure to enact them, one of the reasons I believe there is so much bad driving these days apart from the entitlement that everybody feels that they should be allowed to or not, whether they are fit & capable of doing it is there is no Policing of it. My commute is 36 round trip, I very very rarely see a Police car, the only exception is with blues & two's going somewhere, not just general Policing.
> 
> You can make the law as tight as you want, but if nobody is going to stop people breaking the law it may as well not be there.


I often see the police on my road. The driving is still shockingly illegal. I agree.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2018)

Slick said:


> It wasn't my comment but a common misconception. I think their point is when a driver does something wrong they are immediately identifiable whereas cyclists are not.


How are they? Number plates only identify the vehicle, it's much more difficult to get a clear picture of the driver's face and even more difficult to capture evidence of stuff like using a phone in their lap, dash or centre console. Cyclists are far easier to identify, unobscured by a metal container.


----------



## Lonestar (12 Aug 2018)

PeteXXX said:


> Should the review of the law be widened further to include peds that walk in front of a cyclist, causing the rider to fall of and be injured?



While staring at a mobile phone is my particular bugbear....Had at least four motorists recently step right out of the front of their vehicle just as I was passing because they just don't bloody think.A side road round here holds the record for me for kids dashing into the road without lookingObviously I know of the dangers of this particular street and modify my cycling appropriately.

Pedestrians drop their guard down backstreets,also.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Aug 2018)

If the law regarding cycling is going to be overhauled to bring them more in line with motoring offences.. then surely we'll just be able to excuse ourselves of fault by simply claiming that the injured party 'came out of nowhere'?


----------



## night cycler (12 Aug 2018)

[QUOTE 5346560, member: 9609"]I think as far as traffic goes, *the police have given up*. Apart from attending accidents they now don't bother with traffic laws[/QUOTE]

The *traffic police* have not given up, but there are not enough officers generally, whatever their role.
The responsibility for police numbers has to be with the home secretary.

I am amazed that no one within the gov or in the realms of police federation etc asked the question-“What will happen if we (the police) cannot cope?” It would appear that one answer is “We will pay for overtime which would have financed 10,000 new officers? (See BBC link).

Overtime cost £1.7bn in five years and the Police Federation said money spent in 2017-18 alone could have funded at least 10,000 new police officers.

So, not much different to the NHS paying way over the top for agency nurses & doctors. How many operations etc could that sort of thing paid for.

If Mps were paid on their performance there wouldn’t be so many of them wanting to do the job. What chance have we got when they vote for their own pay rises-I despair.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44900455

and here....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40060677


----------



## Apollonius (12 Aug 2018)

Registration is just not going to happen. It is impossible, unenforceable and cannot be implemented. Just like Brexit then...


----------



## Phaeton (12 Aug 2018)

Apollonius said:


> Registration is just not going to happen. It is impossible, unenforceable and cannot be implemented. Just like Brexit then...


I appreciate you are casting a hook, but there is a difference, Brexit will happen I doubt registration will.


----------



## jefmcg (12 Aug 2018)

Slick said:


> There was a *girl* there trying to argue that it was transport laws as a whole that need updating


What a sophisticated child she must have be! Or did you mean "woman"?


----------



## Phaeton (12 Aug 2018)

jefmcg said:


> What a sophisticated child she must have be! Or did you mean "woman"?


At what point do they change Grammatically, not Biologically?


----------



## OneArmedBandit (12 Aug 2018)

Phaeton said:


> At what point do they change Grammatically, not Biologically?


There isn't a point because it changes depending on context and how well you know them.

E.g. I would happily refer to the "boys and girls at work", and Mrs OAB will go on girls weekends.

But I wouldn't say "that girl on university challenge".

I suspect it even changes on dialect. I hear people from the north refer to "lasses" in sentences where I wouldn't use "girls".


----------



## jefmcg (12 Aug 2018)

I don't want to derail this thread, so if someone wants to start another about the language, I'll join in.


----------



## Phaeton (12 Aug 2018)

jefmcg said:


> I don't want to derail this thread, so if someone wants to start another about the language, I'll join in.


Are you sure? otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place, don't be so coy.


----------



## jefmcg (12 Aug 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Are you sure? otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place, don't be so coy.


I want men to stop referring to adult women as girls, but I don't want to get into a debate about it. It's not controversial.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2018)

jefmcg said:


> I want men to stop referring to adult women as girls, but I don't want to get into a debate about it. It's not controversial.


Proof by assertion attempt there? While women refer to adult men as "lads", I fear your request will be considered unreasonable.


----------



## PeteXXX (12 Aug 2018)

I’ve just had an interesting conversation with a Lithuanian chap at w*rk. 
Apparently, their driving license includes a category for bicycle. If you get nabbed for a cycling offence (I don’t know what constitutes an offence over there) the points also go on your car/truck/motorcycle license. 
Drunk on a bicycle? Lose your driving license.


----------



## jefmcg (12 Aug 2018)

PeteXXX said:


> I’ve just had an interesting conversation with a Lithuanian chap at w*rk.
> Apparently, their driving license includes a category for bicycle. If you get nabbed for a cycling offence (I don’t know what constitutes an offence over there) the points also go on your car/truck/motorcycle license.
> Drunk on a bicycle? Lose your driving license.


Similar in Australia, but without the special licenses. If you get caught drunk on a bicycle (or as I remember in an oppressive state, drunk on roller-skates, dressed as a fairy at a gay pride march), you can lose your license.

Interestingly, if you didn't have a licence at the time of the offence, then you could apply and get one the next day. That seemed very unfair to me.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2018)

PeteXXX said:


> I’ve just had an interesting conversation with a Lithuanian chap at w*rk.
> Apparently, their driving license includes a category for bicycle. If you get nabbed for a cycling offence (I don’t know what constitutes an offence over there) the points also go on your car/truck/motorcycle license.
> Drunk on a bicycle? Lose your driving license.


I believe this is theoretically possible in UK law since a few years ago but I know of no cases of it actually happening yet... but that may be because cycling offences worth taking to court are relatively rare compared to the far more widespread and deadly illegal motoring.


----------



## OneArmedBandit (12 Aug 2018)

PeteXXX said:


> I’ve just had an interesting conversation with a Lithuanian chap at w*rk.
> Apparently, their driving license includes a category for bicycle. If you get nabbed for a cycling offence (I don’t know what constitutes an offence over there) the points also go on your car/truck/motorcycle license.
> Drunk on a bicycle? Lose your driving license.


I am 99.9% certain this is made up. As far as I know no EU members have licencing for bicycles, and there is a big push by the EU to harmonise cycle regs anyway.

It may be one of those technical things where you can in theory get points on your licence on a bike just as you can here for things like theft. But it's a provision that is almost never used.


----------



## OneArmedBandit (12 Aug 2018)

mjr said:


> I believe this is theoretically possible in UK law since a few years ago but I know of no cases of it actually happening yet... but that may be because cycling offences worth taking to court are relatively rare compared to the far more widespread and deadly illegal motoring.


You can't in the UK, all alcohol related offences are only an offence for motor vehicles.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2018)

OneArmedBandit said:


> You can't in the UK, all alcohol related offences are only an offence for motor vehicles.


Not true. You cannot be required to use a breathalyser and there is no set alcohol limit, but you can be drunk in charge like a horse carriage driver. Rarely prosecuted without a collision, though. Section 30 Road Traffic Act 1988 nowadays. @spen666 may know more IIRC.


----------



## Lonestar (12 Aug 2018)

Apollonius said:


> Registration is just not going to happen. It is impossible, unenforceable and cannot be implemented. Just like Brexit then...



You were doing so well till you said Brexit.


----------



## srw (12 Aug 2018)

OneArmedBandit said:


> You can't in the UK, all alcohol related offences are only an offence for motor vehicles.


https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2017/04/is-it-illegal-to-ride-a-bicycle-when-drunk/

"It is illegal to ride your bike under the influence of drink or drugs, and you would be guilty of this if you were unfit to ride to such an extent as you are incapable of having proper control of the bicycle."


----------



## Illaveago (12 Aug 2018)

[QUOTE 5346696, member: 43827"]Yes. _Everyone_ who uses a road.[/QUOTE]
What about horses?


----------



## Illaveago (12 Aug 2018)

srw said:


> https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2017/04/is-it-illegal-to-ride-a-bicycle-when-drunk/
> 
> "It is illegal to ride your bike under the influence of drink or drugs, and you would be guilty of this if you were unfit to ride to such an extent as you are incapable of having proper control of the bicycle."


Wasnt there a case years ago of somebody driving a Sinclair C5 whilst under the influence but managed to get off ?


----------



## Julia9054 (12 Aug 2018)

srw said:


> https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2017/04/is-it-illegal-to-ride-a-bicycle-when-drunk/
> 
> "It is illegal to ride your bike under the influence of drink or drugs, and you would be guilty of this if you were unfit to ride to such an extent as you are incapable of having proper control of the bicycle."


My sister!


----------



## Fab Foodie (12 Aug 2018)

theclaud said:


> It isn't though, is it? If you're looking to legislate to make the roads safer, you need to focus on where the danger is coming from.


Shame on you TC....coming on here, stating the bleedin’ obvious....


----------



## Salty seadog (12 Aug 2018)

[QUOTE 5346728, member: 9609"]more police per head of population than ever before, they're just bogged down in too much complexity. too busy counting crime than trying to stop it
1960 - population 51 million, 71,000 police officers
2017 - population 63 million, 123,000 police officers
thats a 40% increase per capita in police numbers

and sadly for us road crime, even though it is a bigger taker of life and cause of serious injuries than any other crime, has becoming of low priority to them, their focus is now elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

What were the numbers for say, 2009, 2015? Just curious.


----------



## Profpointy (12 Aug 2018)

[QUOTE 5346855, member: 9609"]this happens in Germany too, laws revolve around 'transport' rather than the 'motor vehicle'. And as such points can be added to your licience for things like jumping a red light on a push bike. (not sure how that applies to youngsters or those that don't drive). I think there is also a higher threshold for for how much you can drink whilst cycling, but you can loose your driving licience for riding a bike drunk in germany.

I think it is a good idea.[/QUOTE]

I think it's a ludicrous idea and just pandering to the petrol head false equivalence. A poorly ridden bike seriously harming another person is an extremely rare thing, to the extent that it makes the national news and web discussions for months. 2000 od are killed by motor vehicles in the uk each year - yet you are suggesting the punishments for bad cycling ahould be made much much more severe. It is just nuts to suggest drunken cycling ahould be punished the same as drunken driving as some kind of equivalence argument


----------



## PeteXXX (12 Aug 2018)

OneArmedBandit said:


> I am 99.9% certain this is made up. As far as I know no EU members have licencing for bicycles, and there is a big push by the EU to harmonise cycle regs anyway.
> 
> It may be one of those technical things where you can in theory get points on your licence on a bike just as you can here for things like theft. But it's a provision that is almost never used.


Next time I see the chap, or .1% of him, I’ll ask for more details. I don’t think it’s an actual licence, more a category on a driving licence. I’m sure he said that Estonia was the same.


----------



## OneArmedBandit (12 Aug 2018)

mjr said:


> Not true. You cannot be required to use a breathalyser and there is no set alcohol limit, but you can be drunk in charge like a horse carriage driver. Rarely prosecuted without a collision, though. Section 30 Road Traffic Act 1988 nowadays. @spen666 may know more IIRC.


I should have been clearer, you can't get points on your driving licence for an alcohol offence on a bike. You can get done with a fine only.


----------



## NorthernDave (12 Aug 2018)

I've just been listening to the news on the wireless and they've quoted the "Minister for Cycling" as saying that there is overwhelming demand for cyclists to be treated the same as other road users when someone is killed or seriously injured.

So, that'll be a slap on the wrist and a £50 fine then? 

Or, for a more balanced view, try this:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...to-behave-is-more-headline-grabbing-hypocrisy


----------



## Brandane (12 Aug 2018)

[QUOTE 5346728, member: 9609"]more police per head of population than ever before, they're just bogged down in too much complexity. too busy counting crime than trying to stop it
1960 - population 51 million, 71,000 police officers
2017 - population 63 million, 123,000 police officers
thats a 40% increase per capita in police numbers

and sadly for us road crime, even though it is a bigger taker of life and cause of serious injuries than any other crime, has becoming of low priority to them, their focus is now elsewhere.[/QUOTE]



Salty seadog said:


> What were the numbers for say, 2009, 2015? Just curious.



I've no idea where those statistics are from, but I would be interested to know if they include Special Constables (aka "hobby bobbies") in the numbers? Both for 1960 and 2017. They are very keen to recruit Special Constables to bolster the numbers at low cost, but these "officers" are only required to come out for a very few hours per month, and are only any use as corroboration (and sometimes not much use for that) for regular officers. There are also now a not insignificant number of part time Police Officers which is a relatively new concept. Are they being counted amongst those numbers?

It should also be noted that overtime cuts can have a serious effect on Police numbers. "Back in the day", we used to have a double shift on for the peak hours on Friday and Saturday nights from 10pm to 3am, as the back shift stayed on late and night shift came out early (there was no choice given, you just did it without questions!). That was done away with at the stroke of a pen sometime during the early 90's, thus halving the number of officers available to tackle increasing disorder.

Never believe statistics.


----------



## Salty seadog (12 Aug 2018)

Brandane said:


> Never believe statistics.



Yep , you can prove anything with statistics..... Any way. 

Shouldn't you be starting a satirical thread about cars ..?


----------



## Brandane (12 Aug 2018)

[QUOTE 5346495, member: 9609"]the line that stuck out for me was
"By contrast, Cycling UK said that 99.4% of deaths on the road in the last ten years involved a motor vehicle".
as such it would seem to me that 99.4% of the focus needs to be on motorized vehicles.[/QUOTE]
99.4% of the focus probably IS on motorised vehicles. This is us getting our 0.6%. I wouldn't get overly concerned about it.


----------



## classic33 (12 Aug 2018)

NorthernDave said:


> *I've just been listening to the news on the wireless and they've quoted the "Minister for Cycling" as saying that there is overwhelming demand for cyclists to be treated the same as other road users when someone is killed or seriously injured.
> *
> So, that'll be a slap on the wrist and a £50 fine then?
> 
> ...


Would it mean that we'd no longer be treated as second class, and that we can expect to be treated seriously if we're hit by a motor vehicle?


----------



## Edgy Dee (12 Aug 2018)

PeteXXX said:


> Should the review of the law be widened further to include peds that walk in front of a cyclist, causing the rider to fall of and be injured?


Having been involved in two collisions in the last fortnight (in the same location!) the proposal does concern me.
On the first occasion I was filtering up the outside when a pedestrian stepped out from behind a vehicle without looking. I always stay wide enough to avoid car-dooring, so she stepped pretty far and fast. I had no time to brake, and collided with her. I got a grazed knee, a bruised thigh, and a busted lip. I guess she was pretty shaken up too, but she was able to walk away. If there was a presumption against cyclists I would have found myself being investigated for dangerous cycling, when it seemed clear to me that the fault was entirely the pedestrian's. She said she didn't expect a bike moving up outside the motors as they usually moved up the inside.
The second incident involved a car doing a u-turn from the parking lane. He was looking left as he turned, and although I stopped, he kept coming towards me as he looked left, until I was shouting through his window. He then accused me of cycling too fast! On both occasions I was moving at about 16mph.
What concerns me about this proposed new law is that it tends, unnecessarily, to shift the presumption of fault onto cyclists, and doesn't address the woeful lack of bike awareness amongst other road users!


----------



## User10119 (12 Aug 2018)

Salty seadog said:


> What were the numbers for say, 2009, 2015? Just curious.


We've had this conversation before....
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-statistics-home-office-figures-a7851576.html


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2018)

Salty seadog said:


> Yep , you can prove anything with statistics..... Any way.
> 
> Shouldn't you be starting a satirical thread about cars ..?


Figures can't lie but liars can figure... always check statistics are really saying what the reporter claims they are.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2018)

srw said:


> https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2017/04/is-it-illegal-to-ride-a-bicycle-when-drunk/
> 
> "It is illegal to ride your bike under the influence of drink or drugs, and you would be guilty of this if you were unfit to ride to such an extent as you are incapable of having proper control of the bicycle."


Puritanical shoots. "The best advice I can give is not to drink alcohol if you intend to cycle. If you do drink then there is a good chance you will be committing a criminal offence." Not true, as clarified in the bit @srw quoted! Slater and Gordon should have been fired by Cycling UK for their misleading cyclist-hating articles long ago.

How different it is abroad. In most of central and southeastern Europe, there's a fruity beer drink called a "Radler", the German for "Cyclist". 2% ABV. A little drink is reasonable and expected. I heartily recommend Karlovačko Natur Radler from Croatia.


----------



## chriswoody (12 Aug 2018)

[QUOTE 5346855, member: 9609"]this happens in Germany too, laws revolve around 'transport' rather than the 'motor vehicle'. And as such points can be added to your licience for things like jumping a red light on a push bike. (not sure how that applies to youngsters or those that don't drive). I think there is also a higher threshold for for how much you can drink whilst cycling, but you can loose your driving licience for riding a bike drunk in germany.

I think it is a good idea.[/QUOTE]

Our Chief at work lost his licence for riding whilst drunk. The police will have a blitz from time to time on red light jumping or other offences. Like you I'm absolutely cool with the idea and believe that I should be treated the same as car drivers.



Profpointy said:


> I think it's a ludicrous idea and just pandering to the petrol head false equivalence. A poorly ridden bike seriously harming another person is an extremely rare thing, to the extent that it makes the national news and web discussions for months. 2000 od are killed by motor vehicles in the uk each year - yet you are suggesting the punishments for bad cycling ahould be made much much more severe. It is just nuts to suggest drunken cycling ahould be punished the same as drunken driving as some kind of equivalence argument



Your looking at this out of context. To introduce a rule like this in Britain at this time would be daft. However, as @User9609 as pointed out the rules and laws here in Germany are very different. Transport is looked at in a more holistic way and we have a phenomenal number of cyclists here everyday. As well as some really good infrastructure, with segregated shared paths and major junctions controlled by lights just for the bikes. When you factor in presumed liability as well, there is the very real probability of chaos if folk don't ride with the same due regard for the rules as when their driving. The only real near misses I've had in the city have come from other cyclists disregarding the rules and nearly wiping me out. The ever real threat of Driving licence endorsement is one way of making sure that we all in theory, comply.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2018)

Spotter's guide to Radler:


----------



## chriswoody (12 Aug 2018)

I've sunk quite a few of them in the last weeks. When the temperature is in the mid thirties a cold Radler straight from the fridge is lovely.


----------



## Profpointy (12 Aug 2018)

chriswoody said:


> Our Chief at work lost his licence for riding whilst drunk. The police will have a blitz from time to time on red light jumping or other offences. Like you I'm absolutely cool with the idea and believe that I should be treated the same as car drivers.
> 
> 
> 
> Your looking at this out of context. To introduce a rule like this in Britain at this time would be daft. However, as @User9609 as pointed out the rules and laws here in Germany are very different. Transport is looked at in a more holistic way and we have a phenomenal number of cyclists here everyday. As well as some really good infrastructure, with segregated shared paths and major junctions controlled by lights just for the bikes. When you factor in presumed liability as well, there is the very real probability of chaos if folk don't ride with the same due regard for the rules as when their driving. The only real near misses I've had in the city have come from other cyclists disregarding the rules and nearly wiping me out. The ever real threat of Driving licence endorsement is one way of making sure that we all in theory, comply.



It's a bit bizarre that the punishment for doing something wrong for which you don't need a licence is to ban you from doing something else. And it means the punishment for doing something admittedly foolish / illegal that is very unlikely to hurt anyone else is the same as for doing somethi g extremely likely to cause risk to others. I'd go as far as to say cycling dangerously is less harmfull than driving safely !

By the same token I 'd not expect scrumping apples to merit the same punishment as bank robbery


----------



## chriswoody (12 Aug 2018)

Whilst I agree that a car can cause some pretty significant damage in much greater proportion to what a bike can, I still think a bike can cause more damage than you think.

The other week, I was riding along in the city and turning left across the road, when a cyclist paying absolutely no attention to their surroundings came off the pavement (Where they were perfectly entitled to be) without stopping and nearly crashed into me. Only some nifty braking and swerving stopped me from hitting them, but If I had been hit, there was the very real possibility of being knocked into the path of a car. So whilst the bike per se wouldn't have caused me too much pain, the subsequent car collision would of.

So yes, the idea of points on a licence is a bit of an odd one, but the idea of treating all roads users equally, is something I believe in, given the potential danger the bikes do pose if ridden badly.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2018)

chriswoody said:


> So yes, the idea of points on a licence is a bit of an odd one, but the idea of treating all roads users equally, is something I believe in, given the potential danger the bikes do pose if ridden badly.


Really? Is the potential danger posed equal to a car driven badly? I think both the potential and average are far greater for bad driving and the scale of penalties should reflect that even if the offences are harmonised... so while killer drivers get fined a few pounds and a wrist slapped, killer cyclists should be fined a few pence and a finger patted... or we increase the driver penalties accordingly


----------



## chriswoody (12 Aug 2018)

The point that I'm trying to make, is that if you talk about a pure bike on bike accident, then I agree, the potential harm is going to be very low, compared to the impact from a car. However, I posted the example of when a bike nearly knocked me into the path of a car, now whilst the impact from the bike would have been negligible, the impact from the car would not of been. The cause of the accident though, would still have been the cyclist, even though the damage would have been caused by the car. 

I just feel that when the number of cyclists reaches critical mass, like here in Germany, you need to have a serious look at how you police every road user, be it car or cyclist. Whilst it may be far from a perfect system, having cycled quite extensively both here and in Britain, I feel that this country has a far better balance and that I feel a thousand times safer on the roads here.


----------



## classic33 (12 Aug 2018)

What would happen if the driver immediatly behind a cyclist, were to cause a bigger incident because of the actions of the cyclist.

One worry on some roads is that whilst I may be able to stop, will what's behind me be able to. The notion that the vehicle behind shouldn't be closer than it's driver is able to stop in, but in town/city centre cycling that distance isn't always there. On paper and theory it's fine. In practice, it's another thing entirely.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2018)

OneArmedBandit said:


> I should have been clearer, you can't get points on your driving licence for an alcohol offence on a bike. You can get done with a fine only.


Why doesn't section 146 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (allowing a non-driving offence to affect a driving licence) apply to an alcohol offence on a bike?


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2018)

classic33 said:


> The notion that the vehicle behind shouldn't be closer than it's driver is able to stop in, but in town/city centre cycling that distance isn't always there. On paper and theory it's fine. In practice, it's another thing entirely.


Enforce the law and it'll change.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2018)

chriswoody said:


> The point that I'm trying to make, is that if you talk about a pure bike on bike accident, then I agree, the potential harm is going to be very low, compared to the impact from a car. However, I posted the example of when a bike nearly knocked me into the path of a car, now whilst the impact from the bike would have been negligible, the impact from the car would not of been. The cause of the accident though, would still have been the cyclist, even though the damage would have been caused by the car.
> 
> I just feel that when the number of cyclists reaches critical mass, like here in Germany, you need to have a serious look at how you police every road user, be it car or cyclist. Whilst it may be far from a perfect system, having cycled quite extensively both here and in Britain, I feel that this country has a far better balance and that I feel a thousand times safer on the roads here.


The accident would have had multiple causes, including the car's driver not being able to stop within what was clear.

I think the reasons for feeling safer may be more complicated than this.


----------



## Julia9054 (12 Aug 2018)

mjr said:


> Why doesn't section 146 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (allowing a non-driving offence to affect a driving licence) apply to an alcohol offence on a bike?


It's not fair if two people are caught drunk on a bike and one has a driving licence and the other doesn't?


----------



## classic33 (12 Aug 2018)

mjr said:


> Enforce the law and it'll change.


Quick questions
How would you know your speed, with any accuracy?
How will it be enforced? As in who's there to do it.

We have a slower speed than most traffic, but the speeds a cycle can travel at are often underestimated. The "Two Second Rule" is broken on a daily basis, many times over.


----------



## classic33 (12 Aug 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> It's not fair if two people are caught drunk on a bike and one has a driving licence and the other doesn't?


I don't and can never have one. If the same rules were applied to cyclists, would I have to stop cycling?


----------



## classic33 (12 Aug 2018)

mjr said:


> The accident would have had multiple causes, including the car's driver not being able to stop within what was clear.
> 
> I think the reasons for feeling safer may be more complicated than this.


A simple surface defect, that a car can travel over with no worries, that can't be cleared by two wheels. Travelling on a road vehicle who's speed is often underestimated.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> It's not fair if two people are caught drunk on a bike and one has a driving licence and the other doesn't?


I agree, but unfairness doesn't normally stop laws applying.


----------



## stoatsngroats (12 Aug 2018)

The change of laws appears to me to be an ‘after the fact’ issue, ie. when injury or death has been caused, and following the high profile case regarding a woman’s death highlighted that there is no cycle specific provision of prosecution, which should be updated imo.
Regarding further changes, to provided improved prosecution for other contraventions, whether these could be policed or not, that is a good thing too, and we should all be made to be responsible for our actions. 
If we don’t have the correct amendments, this doesn’t mean that the whole enterprise is futile, merely that the voice of the cycling fraternity is either too quiet, incoherent in message, or being ignored, neither of which is visible here. 

Whether those who have the opportunity to make changes to these laws have the correct message, it is up to each of us to make sure they are sufficiently well inform d by us, as cyclist, and CyclingUK amongst others have been shown t have a voice.
Will anyone here be writing to there MP?


----------



## classic33 (12 Aug 2018)

mjr said:


> I agree, but unfairness doesn't normally stop laws applying.


But if you're able to apply for a lisence at a later date, those points can be added to one you might get at a later date. If you can't apply then a different rule needs to be drawn up, to ensure all offences are dealt with the same way.


----------



## classic33 (12 Aug 2018)

stoatsngroats said:


> The change of laws appears to me to be an ‘after the fact’ issue, ie. when injury or death has been caused, and following the high profile case regarding a woman’s death highlighted that there is no cycle specific provision of prosecution, which should be updated imo.
> Regarding further changes, to provided improved prosecution for other contraventions, whether these could be policed or not, that is a good thing too, and we should all be made to be responsible for our actions.
> If we don’t have the correct amendments, this doesn’t mean that the whole enterprise is futile, merely that the voice of the cycling fraternity is either too quiet, incoherent in message, or being ignored, neither of which is visible here.
> 
> ...


Mine wants cyclists removing from the roads. Would there be any benefit in writing to her?


----------



## stoatsngroats (12 Aug 2018)

classic33 said:


> Mine wants cyclists removing from the roads. Would there be any benefit in writing to her?


Well, of course, because without any critique from you, she will continue in her belief!
If others within her constituency also bothered, them maybe she could become informed.... isn’t this what a democratic right exists to achieve?


----------



## OneArmedBandit (12 Aug 2018)

mjr said:


> Why doesn't section 146 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (allowing a non-driving offence to affect a driving licence) apply to an alcohol offence on a bike?


There are lots of theoretical provisions for getting points knocking around in legislation but they generally used in specific, rare ways.

The purpose of S146 was to allow courts to apply disqualifications for offences that would attract disqualifications if a motoring offence was charged, but an alternative offence was prosecuted. For instance, there was one near me recently where a driver drove through a road closure and abused paramedics. He was charged with a public order offence but also received a three month driving ban under S146 provisions.

Punishments are prescribed by law for a reason and magistrates have to have a solid reason to use S146, which effectively can only ever be an alternative charge would have attracted a ban. "We don't like cyclists", "I saw a wobbly cyclist with no lights one evening", "We think drunk cyclists are just as dangerous as drunk drivers" - all would be easy to appeal against.


----------



## classic33 (12 Aug 2018)

stoatsngroats said:


> Well, of course, because without any critique from you, she will continue in her belief!
> If others within her constituency also bothered, them maybe she could become informed.... isn’t this what a democratic right exists to achieve?


She's well aware of what her viiews on cycling are doing. They've even spread to the local council. All new local cycle provision since she came in, has been off-road. As are all planned works until 2023.

She's also aware of my views on where cyclists belong. A legal right to use the roads, and she's against that. We, cyclists, slow traffic down which isn't acceptable. Solution, get us off the roads.


----------



## stoatsngroats (12 Aug 2018)

classic33 said:


> She's well aware of what her viiews on cycling are doing. They've even spread to the local council. All new local cycle provision since she came in, has been off-road. As are all planned works until 2023.
> 
> She's also aware of my views on where cyclists belong. A legal right to use the roads, and she's against that. We, cyclists, slow traffic down which isn't acceptable. Solution, get us off the roads.



But that’s not what this thread is about, it’s about the laws regarding prosecution following an act causing injury or death, whilst using a bicycle.(sorry, I’ve just re-read the thread title! My bad! )


----------



## classic33 (12 Aug 2018)

And a reccurring argument is that we as cyclists need to be subject to the same laws as motorists.

Being drunk in charge being a top argument. Because at present it doesn't apply to us. Maybe if the rules were changed, it could be made apply.


----------



## OneArmedBandit (12 Aug 2018)

@stoatsngroats You should point them in the direction of my council which has an excellent mix of off and on road cycle provosion.

In fact, by ambitious use of dropped kerbs they usually switch cycle lanes between the pavement and road every twenty metres.


----------



## Mike_P (12 Aug 2018)

The consultation can be found here
https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...-causing-death-or-serious-injury-when-cycling.

It talks about an offence of dangerous cycling and another of careless or inconsiderate cycling of which the legal profession are no doubt rubbing their hands on the amount of money they can make arguing what is or is not careless or inconsiderate cycling - …_ but Mr Defendant you should have realised the pedestrian might suddenly change direction and walk out in front of you and you were consequently cycling in an inconsiderate manner..._


----------



## stoatsngroats (12 Aug 2018)

OneArmedBandit said:


> @stoatsngroats You should point them in the direction of my council which has an excellent mix of off and on road cycle provosion.
> 
> In fact, by ambitious use of dropped kerbs they usually switch cycle lanes between the pavement and road every twenty metres.



I’m happy with my local cycling provision, and it’s improving really well, nearby, 5 miles opened recently, beside the A259, and linking two conurbations really well, and being well used by a wide range of cyclists.
Whilst this improvement has taken a decade or more, things have changed a lot, and these improvements allow cycling between Littlehampton and Chichester, almost completely on segregated paths.
I think classic33 was the one having the issues with his local MP!


----------



## Slick (12 Aug 2018)

Mike_P said:


> The consultation can be found here
> https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...-causing-death-or-serious-injury-when-cycling.
> 
> It talks about an offence of dangerous cycling and another of careless or inconsiderate cycling of which the legal profession are no doubt rubbing their hands on the amount of money they can make arguing what is or is not careless or inconsiderate cycling - …_ but Mr Defendant you should have realised the pedestrian might suddenly change direction and walk out in front of you and you were consequently cycling in an inconsiderate manner..._


I think I'll need to complete that form but it may take a while.


----------



## OneArmedBandit (12 Aug 2018)

Mike_P said:


> The consultation can be found here
> https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...-causing-death-or-serious-injury-when-cycling.
> 
> It talks about an offence of dangerous cycling and another of careless or inconsiderate cycling of which the legal profession are no doubt rubbing their hands on the amount of money they can make arguing what is or is not careless or inconsiderate cycling - …_ but Mr Defendant you should have realised the pedestrian might suddenly change direction and walk out in front of you and you were consequently cycling in an inconsiderate manner..._


Except in a desperate push that cycling must have "equivalence" with motoring they have forgotten a key idea.

Careless and dangerous driving are when driving falls [far] below the standard of a careful and competent driver.

That's all well and good in the highly regulated world of driving and it's not difficult to imagine that the line is pretty much "if you had done this in your driving test, would you have failed".

In cycling there isn't that line. It is probably fair to say that an experienced cyclists travels faster and takes more risks than an inexperienced cyclist, yet is less likely to have an accident. Which one is careful and competent? Is Chris Froome, who I am sure in training goes at speeds that would involve new shorts for me, more or less careful and competent? Is my Mum careful and competent because she never gets about 7mph?

If you can't decide what standard you are judging against you are left with things like going through a red light, or having a dangerous bicycle, most of which already have provisions. And the CPS will go to those rather than a law full of holes. It is much easier to prove an objective fact, than convince someone to form a subjective opinion about objective facts.

However, it will get Daily Mail readers incontinent with excitement, just as when they announced everyone hogging the middle lane would be fined. Didn't happen. No appetite for arguing wooly offences unless it's for a big issue. This will not affect 99.99999% of cyclists at all.


----------



## Milkfloat (12 Aug 2018)

The worrying things is the question of who gets to judge your bad cycling. A driver is in front of a jury full of drivers thinking ‘that could be me in the dock’ a cyclist would have a jury full of prejudices before the trial starts. I don’t see a huge need to focus all this effort on bad cycling, after all Charlie Allison is doing time under existing laws. I am not against a dangerous cycling law, but would rather the governments limited ability to focus on a topic was on spent on the real dangers on the road.


----------



## srw (13 Aug 2018)

classic33 said:


> And a reccurring argument is that we as cyclists need to be subject to the same laws as motorists.
> 
> Being drunk in charge being a top argument. Because at present it doesn't apply to us. Maybe if the rules were changed, it could be made apply.


Maybe, just maybe, if a cyclist was in charge of a tonne of metal rather than a few kilos, and if cycling were responsible for causing a serious injury more often than once in a blue moon there might be some point in drawing parallels with driving laws.

But then armchair pontificators would have nothing to pontificate about, would you?


----------



## Brandane (13 Aug 2018)

stoatsngroats said:


> The change of laws appears to me to be an ‘after the fact’ issue, ie. when injury or death has been caused, and following the high profile case regarding a woman’s death highlighted that there is no cycle specific provision of prosecution, which should be updated imo.


Why do we need to have all these specific laws, when there are already laws which cover it? Manslaughter would do it. We're just tying the law up in knots with all these unnecessary new statutes. There is no specific law (in Scotland anyway) against shouting and swearing in the street at 2am - but breach of the peace is a common law crime which covers it (and a host of other things) nicely.


----------



## slowmotion (13 Aug 2018)

Haven't cyclists largely brought this daft potential legislation on themselves? We run red lights, yell at car drivers and pedestrians, and generally ponce about in an embarrassingly self-righteous manner. Can you really be surprised that "the others" want to curb our stupidity and independence?


----------



## winjim (13 Aug 2018)

NorthernDave said:


> I've just been listening to the news on the wireless and they've quoted the "Minister for Cycling" as saying that there is overwhelming demand for cyclists to be treated the same as other road users when someone is killed or seriously injured.
> 
> So, that'll be a slap on the wrist and a £50 fine then?
> 
> ...


'In what could have been a letter to his older self, Norman wrote... ...in June'​Savage.


----------



## Milkfloat (13 Aug 2018)

slowmotion said:


> Haven't cyclists largely brought this daft potential legislation on themselves? We run red lights, yell at car drivers and pedestrians, and generally ponce about in an embarrassingly self-righteous manner. Can you really be surprised that "the others" want to curb our stupidity and independence?



All covered by existing laws - although I might need help with a specific one for poncing about. I would be fine if the proposed legislation came hand in hand with legislation and infrastructure to protect cyclists and it was actually enforced. From what I have seen so far, the proposed legislation is just a massive diversion from the real problem.


----------



## Phaeton (13 Aug 2018)

Edgy Dee said:


> On both occasions I was moving at about 16mph.


Which could have been too fast under the circumstances


----------



## flake99please (13 Aug 2018)

Mike_P said:


> The consultation can be found here
> https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...-causing-death-or-serious-injury-when-cycling.
> 
> It talks about an offence of dangerous cycling and another of careless or inconsiderate cycling of which the legal profession are no doubt rubbing their hands on the amount of money they can make arguing what is or is not careless or inconsiderate cycling - …_ but Mr Defendant you should have realised the pedestrian might suddenly change direction and walk out in front of you and you were consequently cycling in an inconsiderate manner..._



Having read both documents, and the report by Laura Thomas which concluded that there was a persuasive case for a change in the law. I'm left scratching my head as to what the persuasive case for change is...

*"If, as is widely believed, the risk of death or serious injury to pedestrians caused by dangerous riding of cycles on pavements has become a significant problem, Parliament may wish to consider legislating for an appropriate specific offence and maximum penalty."
*
So the government are considering legislation on a perceived 'significant' problem? (A problem equal to 0.12% of all road traffic deaths).


----------



## classic33 (13 Aug 2018)

srw said:


> Maybe, just maybe, if a cyclist was in charge of a tonne of metal rather than a few kilos, and if cycling were responsible for causing a serious injury more often than once in a blue moon there might be some point in drawing parallels with driving laws.
> 
> But then armchair pontificators would have nothing to pontificate about, would you?


Not me that wants to bring the changes in. But maybe, just maybe if cyclists were in charge and and pedalling something that weighed a ton, there'd be fewer of us actually cycling.

If the changes mean that cyclists get treated fairly by the authorities when they're involved in an RTC, then that has to be a good thing. Doesn't it?


----------



## Tin Pot (13 Aug 2018)

Mike_P said:


> The consultation can be found here
> https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...-causing-death-or-serious-injury-when-cycling.
> 
> It talks about an offence of dangerous cycling and another of careless or inconsiderate cycling of which the legal profession are no doubt rubbing their hands on the amount of money they can make arguing what is or is not careless or inconsiderate cycling - …_ but Mr Defendant you should have realised the pedestrian might suddenly change direction and walk out in front of you and you were consequently cycling in an inconsiderate manner..._



“
The consultation invites views on government proposals to introduce new offences of causing death or serious injury while cycling, and other changes to some existing cycling offences.

It recognises the difficulties of trying to *create general parity between cyclists and drivers in terms of licensing and insurance*, for example, but seeks to more closely align penalties for offences that result in death or serious injury.”

If this is about anything other than taxation, why have they mentioned licensing and insurance at all?

It is obvious that there should be no specific laws on cycling. 

Killing, on the other hand, should be illegal irrespective of the life of transport at the time. 

Should there a different law for killing with a knife, sword, pike, crossbow, shotgun, or pillow?


----------



## theclaud (13 Aug 2018)

classic33 said:


> if cyclists were in charge and and pedalling something that weighed a ton, there'd be fewer of us actually cycling.


Well that's me convinced.


----------



## classic33 (13 Aug 2018)

theclaud said:


> Well that's me convinced.


That's as big a problem. You convince like minded people and fail to convince those that you need to convince. 

Fooling yourself into believing that you've convinced only the right people, and brought them over to your side of the argument. Very often not the case.


----------



## MichaelW2 (13 Aug 2018)

One point about the proposed new law: Vehicle crashes are investigated by people with a wide and deep knowledge of cars and how vehicles crash, backup up by expensive research laboratories. Cycle crashes are investigated by people who have no clue about cycling. The stopping distance test in the trial that sparked this debate was conducted on a mountain bike with wide tyres, under conditions that eliminated thinking time and tactical maneuvering time.

One aspect of ped-bicycle collision on the road that is totally ignored by experts is the reaction of pedestrians on the road to approaching cyclists. In panic they often step back, into the empty gap that the cyclist is aiming for. As far as I can tell, this is what happened in both of the previous highly publicised death of pedestrian on the road by cycle collision. You can see this panic reaction in you-tube helmet cam and other videos. I will try and collect a few for posting.

If we are going to be held to account for pedestrian deaths in the same way as drivers, we need to have access to the same level of investigation.


----------



## WHT (13 Aug 2018)

Just another way of the powers that be, exerting and imposing their power, to be seen to be doing something rather than nothing to be this EXTREME is repugnant.


----------



## jarlrmai (13 Aug 2018)

I just feel like the whole thing is taking a highly unusual incident and then using it to focus the undercurrent of public dislike for cyclists into unnecessary laws that will no doubt be applied disproportionately at least initially. I have no doubt that the problems we have raised with regards to just copy/pasting driver laws on to new laws for cyclists (e.g. by what standard will we be judged careless or dangerous) will not be blockers but in fact be used as a fulcrum to try and introduce further laws possibly regarding mandatory helmets or registration.

Can a driver be charged with driving carelessly or dangerously if an incident causes no harm or only causes harm to themselves, for instance driving on the wrong side of the road or driving with no shoes on or while eating/drinking etc? I understand that in reality this is unlikely to actually be prosecuted for but is it part of those laws?


----------



## WHT (13 Aug 2018)

Slick said:


> One of the comments after the piece this morning was that cyclists are answerable to no one. If one of the changes comes from this is some form of registration then it will affect everyone, but it will be too late to do anything about it.


when I heard this on tv; that was my response; I said 'next they will come out with some form of tax for cyclists!'....because when does 'powers that be' let a money spinner pass them by!?


----------



## rugby bloke (13 Aug 2018)

This topic is about to be covered on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 :- waiting with bated breath to hear the quality of the debate.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (13 Aug 2018)

rugby bloke said:


> This topic is about to be covered on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 :- waiting with bated breath to hear the quality of the debate.



Shall we bet on how soon things like RLJ & mythical 'road tax' get mentioned?


----------



## rugby bloke (13 Aug 2018)

Only half listening as I had to take a call, however certainly the word has already cropped up.

Duncan Dollimore from UK Cycling putting forward a lot of common sense in face of a chippy journalist who has a problem with cyclists in London - she had no view outside of the cpaital though.

Just had RLJ and pavement riding - apparently there is a problem with "high speed" cycling on pavements - I guess it depends on your definition of high speed I suppose.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (13 Aug 2018)

Road tax, RLJ, tests & licensing, 'pumped up', 'entitlement' all within the first 10 minutes.

Edit: I passed cycling proficiency as age 11. The certificate is still somewhere so I should be able to get my license easily enough. Phew!

Edit#2: Why is it always London centric?


----------



## Apollonius (13 Aug 2018)

Slightly random thought brought about by having to walk in the road while going down to get my newspaper: There are cars parked on the pavement - let's call it a footway. To get there, they must have driven on it. Riding a bicycle on the footway is generally held to be illegal. If we are to have equivalence between cyclists and the drivers of powered vehicles, then surely, the offset must be that driving on the footway must be illegal too. 

If enforced, this would cause chaos!


----------



## Threevok (13 Aug 2018)

They do make me laugh - Commuting by bicycle is a London only thing.

A bit like BBC Wales believing the world ends at Culverhouse Cross and the only Welsh valley is the Rhondda


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (13 Aug 2018)

Apollonius said:


> Slightly random thought brought about by having to walk in the road while going down to get my newspaper: There are cars parked on the pavement - let's call it a footway. To get there, they must have driven on it. Riding a bicycle on the footway is generally held to be illegal. If we are to have equivalence between cyclists and the drivers of powered vehicles, then surely, the offset must be that driving on the footway must be illegal too.
> 
> If enforced, this would cause chaos!



And of course if you walk in the road eventually a driver will swerve at you to force you onto the pavement.


----------



## Apollonius (13 Aug 2018)

And in said paper, the following:







The transport minister apologised last night for a tweet that claimed that the Conservatives were “cracking down on dangerous cycling”.

The party removed the tweet, which announced a consultation on “dangerous cycling to protect the most vulnerable road users”, after coming under fierce criticism from cyclists, among them the Olympic gold medallist Chris Boardman, whose mother, Carol, 75, died in 2016 when she was knocked off her bicycle by a pick-up truck. Boardman criticised the transport department’s consultation on a plan to introduce a criminal offence of causing death by dangerous or careless cycling. It was prompted by the case of Kim Briggs, 44, who was killed by a bicycle courier in 2016.





The Tory tweet was later taken down and an apology issued
Boardman said that the focus was “on a single tragic case”, when about “66 pedestrians are killed each year on the pavement alone by drivers who are prosecuted for ‘careless driving’.”

Jesse Norman, the minister, replied to Boardman: “I am delighted to say this tweet has now been taken down. It did not reflect either this set of policy announcements or the very careful work the government has done to improve road safety for all users, including cyclists. On behalf of all involved, I would like to apologise”.


----------



## ianrauk (13 Aug 2018)

rugby bloke said:


> Just had RLJ and pavement riding - apparently there is a problem with "high speed" cycling on pavements - I guess it depends on your definition of high speed I suppose.



15 years doing my current cycle commute through SE London, I don't think I have seen, or can ever recall seeing 'High Speed' cycling on the pavement.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (13 Aug 2018)

Well Jeremy Vine seems to be falling into the usual anecdote swapping exercise. I've switched it off.


----------



## mjr (13 Aug 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> Can a driver be charged with driving carelessly or dangerously if an incident causes no harm or only causes harm to themselves, for instance driving on the wrong side of the road or driving with no shoes on or while eating/drinking etc? I understand that in reality this is unlikely to actually be prosecuted for but is it part of those laws?


Not that old chestnut again: driving with no shoes on is fine if you're used to it. It's far better than getting the edges of one's large shoes stuck under/between the control pedals of modern cars designed for tiny-footed freaks. Would you like more people to fail to release the accelerator completely when the edge of the sole gets hooked behind the brake pedal? Or to push the accelerator down along with the brake when most accelerator pedals have an effect with less travel than it takes the brake to have sufficient counteracting effect? Or do you think people with large feet should not be allowed to drive cars with manual gearboxes? (It's less of a problem in two-pedal automatics.)



Apollonius said:


> Slightly random thought brought about by having to walk in the road while going down to get my newspaper: There are cars parked on the pavement - let's call it a footway. To get there, they must have driven on it. Riding a bicycle on the footway is generally held to be illegal. If we are to have equivalence between cyclists and the drivers of powered vehicles, then surely, the offset must be that driving on the footway must be illegal too.
> 
> If enforced, this would cause chaos!


Only until people got used to it and adjusted to it.

One problem is that the law has no regard for logic (maybe because legislation is written by politicians whose grasp on logic can be seen in this consultation) and while it seems logical that the car has probably been driven on the footway to park on it, it may have been lifted there, in the same way that one can legally park a bicycle on the footway by lifting it there. To prove it's been driven on/off, you'd need to watch it. This could easily be done with cameras except that as soon as you start using CCTV to enforce motoring, motorists usually do their nut and campaign against it, resulting in things like the ban on drive-by CCTV parking tickets which I think was introduced by minister Pickles.


----------



## mjr (13 Aug 2018)

ianrauk said:


> 15 years doing my current cycle commute through SE London, I don't think I have seen, or can ever recall seeing 'High Speed' cycling on the pavement.


Aren't most pavements so lumpy that "high speed" cycling would result in an embarrassing hospital visit to have the saddle extracted?


----------



## Tin Pot (13 Aug 2018)

While we’re about it, could motorists stop killing people all the time please?

No?

Oh well.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (13 Aug 2018)

Tin Pot said:


> While we’re about it, could motorists stop killing people all the time please?
> 
> No?
> 
> Oh well.



They covered that early on with a caller saying "but we're not discussing that now".


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (13 Aug 2018)

No mention of horses, electric scooters or hoverboards?


----------



## byegad (13 Aug 2018)

If, dear reader, you want to kill someone, then choose a car as your weapon. The penalty, if you're unlucky enough to be caught, will be far less than if you use your. bare hands, a knife, gun or metal bar as your weapon. This sad fact reflects not only accidental deaths on the roads, but includes deliberate attempts to kill and injure.


----------



## Tin Pot (13 Aug 2018)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> They covered that early on with a caller saying "but we're not discussing that now".



Fair enough. After all, on average they’ve only killed four or so people *every* day.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...uarterly-estimates-july-to-september-2017.pdf

But as they say, there are _far more important_ matters to discuss like that one guy one time that killed someone. We must focus all our effort on eliminating this threat!


----------



## byegad (13 Aug 2018)

And the government does nothing except legislate for the far fewer instances of death by being struck by a cyclist.


----------



## Tin Pot (13 Aug 2018)

What about dogs? Surely there’s a chance of dying by tripping over someone’s dog. This could be more important still!


----------



## jarlrmai (13 Aug 2018)

That wasn't the point of my question to be honest, I just want to know if you can be done when you didn't hurt anyone else only yourself or your car/roadway.


----------



## mjr (13 Aug 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> That wasn't the point of my question to be honest, I just want to know if you can be done when you didn't hurt anyone else only yourself or your car/roadway.


Well, I believe you could be prosecuted when you didn't hurt anyone else only yourself or your car/roadway, but I struggle to think of many ways that you COULD hurt yourself without at least causing damage to someone else's property. Performing an emergency stop without a seatbelt or airbag, perhaps? Would that work? Or can someone think of other ways? Crashing into one's own house, I guess...


----------



## roadrash (13 Aug 2018)

on twitter today..95 year old couple been riding their tandem since the second world war have given up , no not due to age but due to bad drivers.
https://t.co/TTBsrxSVQU


----------



## Pale Rider (13 Aug 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> That wasn't the point of my question to be honest, I just want to know if you can be done when you didn't hurt anyone else only yourself or your car/roadway.



Short answer is yes.

Hacking around a roundabout at speed could be prosecuted as careless driving, even though the only 'damage' would be a bit of tyre wear.

Lots of police chases end without crashes or injury - stinger device, car breaks down, driver sees a chance to flee on foot, etc.

They are routinely prosecuted as dangerous driving.


----------



## jarlrmai (13 Aug 2018)

I'm trying to see if the new laws if similar to current laws could be applied to a cyclist who in the eyes of a police officer is cycling carelessly/dangerously but hasn't actually caused any harm. For instance for cycling not in an optional cycle lane or taking the lane, doing a time trial etc i.e. sort of legal and/or recommended cycling that to some people might be considered dangerous or careless.

I guess it all comes down to what others have said, by what standard will careless/dangerous cycling be judged.


----------



## classic33 (13 Aug 2018)

[QUOTE 5347993, member: 9609"]woudn't want to get into an argument with somebody who could pedal a 1 tun bike[/QUOTE]
Done the half ton quad


mjr said:


> Well, I believe you could be prosecuted when you didn't hurt anyone else only yourself or your car/roadway, but I struggle to think of many ways that you COULD hurt yourself without at least causing damage to someone else's property. Performing an emergency stop without a seatbelt or airbag, perhaps? Would that work? Or can someone think of other ways? Crashing into one's own house, I guess...


Over correcting, travelling too fast for conditions....


----------



## Pale Rider (13 Aug 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> I'm trying to see if the new laws if similar to current laws could be applied to a cyclist who in the eyes of a police officer is cycling carelessly/dangerously but hasn't actually caused any harm. For instance for cycling not in an optional cycle lane or taking the lane, doing a time trial etc i.e. sort of legal and/or recommended cycling that to some people might be considered dangerous or careless.
> 
> I guess it all comes down to what others have said, by what standard will careless/dangerous cycling be judged.



The definition of careless and dangerous is well-established.

In summary, careless is a momentary lapse of attention, or driving that falls below the standard of a careful and competent driver.

Dangerous is driving 'far below' the standard of a careful and competent driver.

In our legal system the initial opinion of that will usually be made by a police officer who decides whether to start the charging process.

The judgment of that is made by magistrates if the case is tried by them, or by a jury if it goes to Crown Court.

Or, of course, by the driver if he convicts himself by pleading guilty.

There is subjectivity involved in making those judgments, but particularly in the more serious cases it's usually fairly clear.

If you flee from the police and barrel down your local high street at 60mph on the wrong side of the road, there isn't room for much argument against that being dangerous driving.


----------



## jarlrmai (13 Aug 2018)

But who who decides what a careful and competent cyclist is?


----------



## OneArmedBandit (13 Aug 2018)

byegad said:


> And the government does nothing except legislate for the far fewer instances of death by being struck by a cyclist.


There is already a lot of legislation for drivers who kill or injure others 

Believe it or not although unwarranted any update to legislation would tend to benefit cyclists. If you look at the Charlie Aliston case if you are prosecuted under an 18th century law the wording tends to be much more vague and there are few statutory defences. This disadvantages the defendant.

The idea that huge numbers if cyclists will suddenly start getting pulled for trivial offences just isn't going to happen. There aren't the police resources, and even if there was why pull a cyclist when drivers are a much juicier fish.

If anything it gives a chance for greater targeting of motorists. If you're focussing on cyclists it logically makes sense to focus on close passes and inconsiderate overtakes as well. Two sides of the same coin


----------



## Pale Rider (13 Aug 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> But who who decides what a careful and competent cyclist is?



As I've just explained, the police officer makes an initial assessment, the judgment will be by the magistrates or a jury at Crown Court.

Most people are drivers, so the copper/magistrates/jury bring their life experience to bear to help them decide what is careful and what is careless or dangerous.

Most of those people will not be cyclists, which could be seen as a handicap when judging the carefulness of a cyclist.

There is the definitions to help them, and road craft is road craft no matter what the mode of transport, but there will always be an element of subjectivity whether the judgment is being made of a car driver or bicycle rider.


----------



## Mike_P (13 Aug 2018)

The whole thing seems very London centric, surprise, surprise. Needs to be some proper research of what and why rather than a knee jerk reaction to a one off tragic event. On 5 Live yesterday it was pointed out no one had been killed by a cyclist going through a red light so immediately is that a law that should be looked at. Some countries allow red lights to be passed in certain circumstances. How many cycle on pavements because its not safe to cycle on the road - certainly see many school children cycling to school on the pavement up hill alongside a very busy A road, if they were stopped from cycling on the pavement the chances are they would not cycle.


----------



## Threevok (13 Aug 2018)

There are certain parts of my commute that I cycle on the pavement.

There was a large Police presence outside the factory last Friday (thanks to a car crash) and none of the officers had a problem with me on the pavement, some of them even had to move out of the way to let me through


----------



## rogerzilla (13 Aug 2018)

Cyclepaths are where you are most likely to kill a pedestrian (since it's legalised pavement riding - even if segregated, people walk on the bike lane). If a DBDC law comes in, cyclepaths are best avoided.


----------



## Slick (13 Aug 2018)

Threevok said:


> There are certain parts of my commute that I cycle on the pavement.
> 
> There was a large Police presence outside the factory last Friday (thanks to a car crash) and none of the officers had a problem with me on the pavement, some of them even had to move out of the way to let me through


I do the same for a couple of hundred yards of a near 30 mile commute. On the way in its usually pretty quiet and it's not an issue but you get the feeling some drivers would just run over the top of you rather than wait the few seconds it would take me to negotiate the roundabout in the evening so I make no apology for reverting to the pavement to get me to where I need to be. I also take the opportunity for a swig of water and to get my breath back so I go very slow on this bit and give way to any of the few pedestrians that use the same pavement.


----------



## Edgy Dee (13 Aug 2018)

rogerzilla said:


> Cyclepaths are where you are most likely to kill a pedestrian (since it's legalised pavement riding - even if segregated, people walk on the bike lane). If a DBDC law comes in, cyclepaths are best avoided.


Cyclepaths are only safe in that a) meandering pedestrians oblige you to proceed with more caution, and b) any injurious incidents are by definition no longer 'road traffic accidents', and as such, therefore, don't count. Best avoided anyway.


----------



## Edgy Dee (13 Aug 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Which could have been too fast under the circumstances


Clearly too slow, and therefore hindering the important motor traffic, until the incident occurred. At that point it was clearly too fast.


----------



## mjr (13 Aug 2018)

Edgy Dee said:


> b) any injurious incidents are by definition no longer 'road traffic accidents', and as such, therefore, don't count. Best avoided anyway.


Not true. Cycleways are roads for this purpose, so collisions should be recorded, but I believe some police officers share your misunderstanding and will refuse to record them. Also, it's less likely that anyone legally required to report the collision (motorists mainly) will be involved and cyclists will often not report them for fear of being accused of careless or dangerous cycling by a police who generally don't cycle.


----------



## Lozz360 (13 Aug 2018)

jefmcg said:


> Similar in Australia, but without the special licenses. If you get caught drunk on a bicycle (or as I remember in an oppressive state, drunk on roller-skates, dressed as a fairy at a gay pride march), you can lose your license.


That reads very odd. Surely you are not saying that "...dressed as a fairy at a gay pride march, you can lose your (driving) license. "?

I'll apologise now if somehow my sense of humour chip has become disconnected!


----------



## Lozz360 (13 Aug 2018)

classic33 said:


> Mine wants cyclists removing from the roads. Would there be any benefit in writing to her?


Your MP's views are clearly not supported by the government. Their "Cycling and walking investment strategy" (published April last year, "outlines the government’s ambition to make cycling and walking a natural choice for shorter journeys, or as part of longer journeys by 2040". Labour and Lib Dems also made commitments to improving and encouraging cycling (at least they did prior to last year's general election).


----------



## classic33 (13 Aug 2018)

Lozz360 said:


> Your MP's views are clearly not supported by the government. Their "Cycling and walking investment strategy" (published April last year, "outlines the government’s ambition to make cycling and walking a natural choice for shorter journeys, or as part of longer journeys by 2040". Labour and Lib Dems also made commitments to improving and encouraging cycling (at least they did prior to last year's general election).


As said she's in favour of off-road routes, rather than having cyclists slowing traffic down.

On the roads, I'm part of the traffic flow. At times able to move faster than motorised vehicles

Even there, she and her election team are picky about what off-road routes they're in favour of.


----------



## jarlrmai (14 Aug 2018)

It's classic concern trolling, of course she's in favor of the the most expensive choice that has the least likelihood of actually happening and I bet she never asks for funding for it.


----------



## jarlrmai (14 Aug 2018)

Lozz360 said:


> That reads very odd. Surely you are not saying that "...dressed as a fairy at a gay pride march, you can lose your (driving) license. "?
> 
> I'll apologise now if somehow my sense of humour chip has become disconnected!



I think what he is saying that they will take your license off you if you are inebriated on wheels, and the circumstances in which they apply this could be seen as overly punitive and discriminatory for instance being on rollerskates at a march and having a few beers.


----------



## mjr (14 Aug 2018)

OneArmedBandit said:


> There are lots of theoretical provisions for getting points knocking around in legislation but they generally used in specific, rare ways.
> 
> The purpose of S146 was to allow courts to apply disqualifications for offences that would attract disqualifications if a motoring offence was charged, but an alternative offence was prosecuted. For instance, there was one near me recently where a driver drove through a road closure and abused paramedics. He was charged with a public order offence but also received a three month driving ban under S146 provisions.
> 
> Punishments are prescribed by law for a reason and magistrates have to have a solid reason to use S146, which effectively can only ever be an alternative charge would have attracted a ban. "We don't like cyclists", "I saw a wobbly cyclist with no lights one evening", "We think drunk cyclists are just as dangerous as drunk drivers" - all would be easy to appeal against.


I admire that interpretation of the spirit of the law but no such requirements or restrictions are in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/6/section/146 so it is theoretically possible to take someone's driving licence for a cycling offence, isn't it? Even if that spirit is correct, I could see someone arguing in the current cycle-hating climate that an offender shouldn't keep their driving licence just because they used a bicycle instead of a car to break the law.


----------



## night cycler (14 Aug 2018)

classic33 said:


> Mine wants cyclists removing from the roads. Would there be any benefit in writing to her?



@classic33, who is it?


----------



## classic33 (14 Aug 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> It's classic concern trolling, of course she's in favor of the the most expensive choice that has the least likelihood of actually happening and I bet she never asks for funding for it.


If you want to call it trolling fine. But funding has been sought and secured for the routes that go along the canal towpath. Mentioned elsewhere on here and it was classed as much the same, trolling.

The council consider the road along the valley to be too dangerous for cyclists, and are looking to close them to cyclists on road vehicles. Elsewhere we slow traffic up is being used.


----------



## night cycler (14 Aug 2018)

Tin Pot said:


> “
> The consultation invites views on government proposals to introduce new offences of causing death or serious injury while cycling, and other changes to some existing cycling offences.
> 
> It recognises the difficulties of trying to *create general parity between cyclists and drivers in terms of licensing and insurance*, for example, but seeks to more closely align penalties for offences that result in death or serious injury.”
> ...


Fair point about *method* of killing


----------



## night cycler (14 Aug 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> I just feel like the whole thing is taking a highly unusual incident and then using it to focus the undercurrent of public dislike for cyclists into unnecessary laws that will no doubt be applied disproportionately at least initially. I have no doubt that the problems we have raised with regards to just copy/pasting driver laws on to new laws for cyclists (e.g. by what standard will we be judged careless or dangerous) will not be blockers but in fact be used as a fulcrum to try and i*ntroduce further laws possibly regarding mandatory helmets *or registration.
> 
> Can a driver be charged with driving carelessly or dangerously if an incident causes no harm or only causes harm to themselves, for instance driving on the wrong side of the road or driving with no shoes on or while eating/drinking etc? I understand that in reality this is unlikely to actually be prosecuted for but is it part of those laws?



If ever it becomes law to have compulsory insurance for cycling I would say that the *wearing of helmets* would become mandatory as far as insurance companies are concerned.


----------



## Profpointy (14 Aug 2018)

night cycler said:


> If ever it becomes law to have compulsory insurance for cycling I would say that the *wearing of helmets* would become mandatory as far as insurance companies are concerned.



Why so ? 

Compulsory insurance would be for 3rd party cover....

unless of course you meant compulsory pedestrian helmets to reduce the 3rd pary liability for the cyclists' insurers. But even then, we've not had calls for comoulsory pedestrian helmets from car insurers


----------



## flake99please (14 Aug 2018)

night cycler said:


> If ever it becomes law to have compulsory insurance for cycling I would say that the *wearing of helmets* would become mandatory as far as insurance companies are concerned.



When the state can bring the huge number of uninsured motorised drivers to account, they will have my blessing to pursue mandatory insurance for cyclists.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (14 Aug 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> I just feel like the whole thing is taking a highly unusual incident and then using it to focus the undercurrent of public dislike for cyclists into unnecessary laws that will no doubt be applied disproportionately at least initially. I have no doubt that the problems we have raised with regards to just copy/pasting driver laws on to new laws for cyclists (e.g. by what standard will we be judged careless or dangerous) will not be blockers but in fact be used as a fulcrum to* try and introduce further laws possibly regarding mandatory helmets or registration*.
> 
> Can a driver be charged with driving carelessly or dangerously if an incident causes no harm or only causes harm to themselves, for instance driving on the wrong side of the road or driving with no shoes on or while eating/drinking etc? I understand that in reality this is unlikely to actually be prosecuted for but is it part of those laws?



But it can't go that far as there's no way legislation would force registration and insurance onto a bike bought for a five year old for Christmas.
Going down that route would need the introduction of miniumum age limits and maybe testing/licensing for cyclists doing anything other than pootle around their garden.

Even based on such a tragic event I can't help but feel this is an appeasement of London driver anger or a 'can we control' exercise.


----------



## night cycler (14 Aug 2018)

Profpointy said:


> *It's a bit bizarre that the punishment for doing something wrong for which you don't need a licence is to ban you from doing something else.* And it means the punishment for doing something admittedly foolish / illegal that is very unlikely to hurt anyone else is the same as for doing somethi g extremely likely to cause risk to others. I'd go as far as to say cycling dangerously is less harmfull than driving safely !
> 
> By the same token I 'd not expect scrumping apples to merit the same punishment as bank robbery



I don`t know if it was ever enforced, but not so long ago there were threats to put points on the licenses of kerb crawlers. Kerb crawling is an offence, but I am unsure if it is classed as a motoring offence?

What is it called if you go around a RLA slowly on a cycle? If that is the same as kerb crawling, would they try to put points on your license


----------



## Profpointy (14 Aug 2018)

night cycler said:


> I don`t know if it was ever enforced, but not so long ago there were threats to put points on the licenses of kerb crawlers.



Does seem a stretch, but I suppose it could be argued they weren't paying attention if they were trying to pick up girls rather than looking where they were going. And at least a car was involved. A bit of a thin argument all the same


----------



## night cycler (14 Aug 2018)

Salty seadog said:


> What were the numbers for say, 2009, 2015? Just curious.



I also wondered where the links were to support the poster`s figures comparing numbers from the 1960s to current times. 

Maybe details & facts asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (14 Aug 2018)

We're uncontrolled, unregulated and untaxed. Are we the future target when the oil based revenue stops?
Or is my wandering (and let's face it, paranoid) mind taking this too far?


----------



## classic33 (14 Aug 2018)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> We're uncontrolled, unregulated and untaxed. Are we the future target when the oil based revenue stops?
> Or is my wandering (and let's face it, paranoid) mind taking this too far?


I'd say no, they'd have to raise money from somewhere. How many unregistered road vehicles would suddenly require registration, taxing and possibly an MOT?

Thet may just be getting ready.


----------



## User10119 (14 Aug 2018)

Salty seadog said:


> What were the numbers for say, 2009, 2015? Just curious.





night cycler said:


> I also wondered where the links were to support the poster`s figures comparing numbers from the 1960s to current times.



[QUOTE 5347266, member: 10119"]We've had this conversation before....[/QUOTE]
Although admittedly the figures quoted in this thread don't quite match up with any of the figures from last time around - neither the ones that User9609 originally gave back then, nor the ones that they then 'accepted as more accurate' from a now-former user's now-deleted reply. Perhaps close-ish, but not quite the same.
In both cases, back then and in this thread, the point they appear to be arguing - unless I have misunderstood - is that the police force has proprtionately higher staffing levels for the size of the population and should therefore have lower workloads.


night cycler said:


> Maybe details & facts asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence?


Did you know, there's a rule for that?


> *Sources.* If you claim that something's a fact, back it up with a source. If you can't produce evidence when someone asks you to cite your sources you should admit it is not a fact and remove the claim from your post.


Anyway, I remain deeply unconvinced of the usefulness of comparing dodgy estimates of coppers: population now with dodgy estimates of coppers: population from a time 7 years before the 1967 Road Traffic Act introduced the first maximum legal blood alcohol (_drink driving_) limit in the UK.
(Source for that fact was https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_information_uklawhistory.php)


----------



## byegad (14 Aug 2018)

OneArmedBandit said:


> There is already a lot of legislation for drivers who kill or injure others
> 
> Believe it or not although unwarranted any update to legislation would tend to benefit cyclists. If you look at the Charlie Aliston case if you are prosecuted under an 18th century law the wording tends to be much more vague and there are few statutory defences. This disadvantages the defendant.
> 
> ...



Indeed, but frankly the legislation may allow a certain maximum penalty to be applied to a driver who kills, but is rarely if ever applied.


----------



## mjr (14 Aug 2018)

Profpointy said:


> Why so ?
> 
> Compulsory insurance would be for 3rd party cover....
> 
> unless of course you meant compulsory pedestrian helmets to reduce the 3rd pary liability for the cyclists' insurers. But even then, we've not had calls for comoulsory pedestrian helmets from car insurers


They'd probably like compulsory helmets to reduce the number of people walking and cycling and not inside airbag lined metal boxes. Health and life insurers can pay for the consequences of physical inactivity. Motor insurers would profit.


----------



## classic33 (14 Aug 2018)

mjr said:


> They'd probably like compulsory helmets to reduce the number of people walking and cycling and not inside airbag lined metal boxes. Health and life insurers can pay for the consequences of physical inactivity. Motor insurers would profit.


Why would motor insurers insure a non motorised vehicle?


----------



## mjr (14 Aug 2018)

classic33 said:


> Why would motor insurers insure a non motorised vehicle?


They wouldn't. Motorists are to blame for the vast majority of road collisions injuring people, so their insurers pay for more of the injuries to walkers and cyclists than the insurers of walkers or cyclists.


----------



## OneArmedBandit (14 Aug 2018)

mjr said:


> I admire that interpretation of the spirit of the law but no such requirements or restrictions are in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/6/section/146 so it is theoretically possible to take someone's driving licence for a cycling offence, isn't it? Even if that spirit is correct, I could see someone arguing in the current cycle-hating climate that an offender shouldn't keep their driving licence just because they used a bicycle instead of a car to break the law.


The Coroner's and Justice Act 2009 states that magistrates must stick to sentencing guidelines unless it is in the interests of justice to do otherwise.

So they would need to justify why they gave a cyclist a driving ban. "Because if they had been driving a car I would have" isn't justification because the sentencing guidelines already make clear that they are separate offences.

Remember there are three magistrates. You are saying they would all agree to do something unjustifiable when appealed just because they don't like cyclists. And frankly if it ever actually was in the interests of justice because it indicated they were unsuitable to be on the road, why as cyclists would we opposed that.


----------



## skudupnorth (14 Aug 2018)

One good thing MAY come out of this,more police on the roads trying to find rogue cyclists but all they end up doing is finally catching the real culprits like the speeders,phone users,red light jumpers and dangerous drivers. I could be wrong though seeing as the leaders seem to hate us none profit road users who need no fossil fuels other than cake to travel our miles !


----------



## jarlrmai (14 Aug 2018)

If that operation thing they did after a spate of cyclist fatalities (forgot the name) a while ago with officers stood by the roads in London, it seemed to largely consist of officers unaware of the law spouting bad or pointless advice at cyclists or restraining them for legal actions such as not wearing a helmet and in once case not realising they were stood on a cycle path and stopping a cyclist for riding on the 'pavement.'


----------



## mjr (14 Aug 2018)

OneArmedBandit said:


> The Coroner's and Justice Act 2009 states that magistrates must stick to sentencing guidelines unless it is in the interests of justice to do otherwise.
> 
> So they would need to justify why they gave a cyclist a driving ban. "Because if they had been driving a car I would have" isn't justification because the sentencing guidelines already make clear that they are separate offences.
> 
> Remember there are three magistrates. You are saying they would all agree to do something unjustifiable when appealed just because they don't like cyclists. And frankly if it ever actually was in the interests of justice because it indicated they were unsuitable to be on the road, why as cyclists would we opposed that.


So, finally, we agree that it is theoretically possible under current law: all that would be required is a good justification or a change to the sentencing guidelines, not the law.

And I can't be the only person who thinks after following a particular case very closely that three magistrates have in the past imposed an unjustifiable sentence for a road traffic offence (or in one case I remember, a non-offence).



skudupnorth said:


> One good thing MAY come out of this,more police on the roads trying to find rogue cyclists but all they end up doing is finally catching the real culprits like the speeders,phone users,red light jumpers and dangerous drivers. I could be wrong though seeing as the leaders seem to hate us none profit road users who need no fossil fuels other than cake to travel our miles !


I think you're wrong. We have many times seen more police on the roads trying to find rogue cyclists in "crackdowns", delaying perfectly law-abiding journeys while criminal motorists carry on definitely jumping red lights, definitely committing lighting offences and probably speeding in full view of us! When we've challenged the police, we've been told that only specially-trained police are allowed to stop motorists, while any old officer can stop a cyclist. There's no reason yet to think that the latest bike-bashing will achieve a better outcome.


----------



## Profpointy (14 Aug 2018)

[QUOTE 5349137, member: 9609"] < snipped>


I think if cyclists were in danger of points on their driving licences then they would be more likely to abide by our road laws and as such set a better example to cyclists who don't drive. I don't think compelling people to respect the law is a bad thing.[/QUOTE]

Well I dare say cyclists / or motorists would be more likely to obey the law if they were beheaded, but a sense of proportionality to the seriousness of the offence and potential harm to others seems reasonable to me. Surely you are not suggesting that the level of responsibility and seriousness needed for driving a car, never mind a truck, is similar to that required for cycling ? And yet we allow 5 year olds to ride bikes. Similarly I'd expect much stricter again rules and punishments for say captaining a ship or an airliner than for driving a car.

Robbing a bank is considered more serious than scrumping apples as I've said upthread


----------



## Julia9054 (14 Aug 2018)

It is compulsory to ride on the cyclepath in France if there is one.
I've just been pulled over and told off by an officious bloody gendarme. Apparently the signs are perfectly clear - not to me they weren't - it looked like a bloody pavement. 
Tiny, quiet little place - we weren't in anyone's way on the road. Grrrr!


----------



## mjr (14 Aug 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> It is compulsory to ride on the cyclepath in France if there is one.
> I've just been pulled over and told off by an officious bloody gendarme. Apparently the signs are perfectly clear - not to me they weren't - it looked like a bloody pavement.
> Tiny, quiet little place - we weren't in anyone's way on the road. Grrrr!


What's that got to do with the current proposed laws? Have they snuck in an attempt to compel cycle path use?


----------



## Julia9054 (14 Aug 2018)

mjr said:


> What's that got to do with the current proposed laws? Have they snuck in an attempt to compel cycle path use?


Was annoyed at a silly law. This seemed like the most appropriate thread for a little moan. You don't have to reply


----------



## mjr (14 Aug 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> Was annoyed at a silly law. This seemed like the most appropriate thread for a little moan. You don't have to reply


I don't have to, but I will feel free to reply and ask if I am baffled by the logical disconnect.


----------



## OneArmedBandit (14 Aug 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> It is compulsory to ride on the cyclepath in France if there is one.
> I've just been pulled over and told off by an officious bloody gendarme. Apparently the signs are perfectly clear - not to me they weren't - it looked like a bloody pavement.
> Tiny, quiet little place - we weren't in anyone's way on the road. Grrrr!


Gendarmes sometimes have their own take on the law, I don't know anywhere in France where that is actually a rule.

French cycling rules and guidelines are very sensible in my experience, including 1 metre distance from the kerb, taking primary and cyclists being permitted to go against the flow of traffic on one way roads if the speed limit is 30kmh or less in their highway code.

I have been told off by the gendarmes for headphones though, which are illegal.


----------



## stoatsngroats (14 Aug 2018)

We jus had 4 days in France, and had a blast!
No interference from gendarmes, even in Paris, so maybe just a piece of bad luck with someone having a bad day?


----------



## skudupnorth (14 Aug 2018)

I think you're wrong. We have many times seen more police on the roads trying to find rogue cyclists in "crackdowns", delaying perfectly law-abiding journeys while criminal motorists carry on definitely jumping red lights, definitely committing lighting offences and probably speeding in full view of us! When we've challenged the police, we've been told that only specially-trained police are allowed to stop motorists, while any old officer can stop a cyclist. There's no reason yet to think that the latest bike-bashing will achieve a better outcome.[/QUOTE]

Round our way we do not see much of a Police presence so rogue motorists get away with all manner of law breaking...… I even saw a learner driver jump a red the other day !!! So like I said we MAY see more officers if they want to catch all these killer cyclists but we all know the reality that our so called leaders will not want to spend anymore money on useful resources ! As long as we keep within the law then we will have nothing to worry about.


----------



## mjr (14 Aug 2018)

skudupnorth said:


> Round our way we do not see much of a Police presence so rogue motorists get away with all manner of law breaking...… I even saw a learner driver jump a red the other day !!! So like I said we MAY see more officers if they want to catch all these killer cyclists but we all know the reality that our so called leaders will not want to spend anymore money on useful resources ! As long as we keep within the law then we will have nothing to worry about.


Plenty of police on the roads I use. Driving still awful and laws mostly unenforced.

Even if we keep within the law, we can still be delayed by unfair policing, like I mentioned. One locally-famous case involved a legal (with front brake) fixed wheel cyclist being detained for using an "illegal" cycle, according to the officer. So I'm in no hurry to see non-roads-policing officers cracking down on cyclists again because it'll slow everyone down and erode one of the key reasons people cycle: because it's a faster journey than car-then-walk.


----------



## skudupnorth (14 Aug 2018)

mjr said:


> Plenty of police on the roads I use. Driving still awful and laws mostly unenforced.
> 
> Even if we keep within the law, we can still be delayed by unfair policing, like I mentioned. One locally-famous case involved a legal (with front brake) fixed wheel cyclist being detained for using an "illegal" cycle, according to the officer. So I'm in no hurry to see non-roads-policing officers cracking down on cyclists again because it'll slow everyone down and erode one of the key reasons people cycle: because it's a faster journey than car-then-walk.


Better watch myself with my legal fixie


----------



## classic33 (14 Aug 2018)

mjr said:


> Plenty of police on the roads I use. Driving still awful and laws mostly unenforced.
> 
> Even if we keep within the law, we can still be delayed by unfair policing, like I mentioned. One locally-famous case involved a legal (with front brake) fixed wheel cyclist being detained for using an "illegal" cycle, according to the officer. So I'm in no hurry to see non-roads-policing officers cracking down on cyclists again because it'll slow everyone down and erode one of the key reasons people cycle: because it's a faster journey than car-then-walk.


I cycle because I'll never be allowed to drive. "Proving" to some folk that I can do what they feel can't be done. I was told I'd "never be able to cycle" for health reasons.

It's faster than walking over two miles round here. Shorter routes available when walking. And no worries over having to lock my trainers up when I get there.

I'm not a fan of the present road we seem to be headed down, forced onto off-road routes. I use a road vehicle, and as such expect to be allowed to use it where the law says I can. It's an attitude that has got me at odds with the local council. Who by the way don't have one councillour that has cycled since they were old enough to drive. The "cycling tsar" has never ridden a bike, but all route planning goes through her office.

If there is a change in the law, they'll have to go back on what they've already said. That being that licensing cyclist and registration of cyclists would cost more to implement than would be brought in by either scheme.


----------



## skudupnorth (15 Aug 2018)

They can keep bringing all the laws they want but they have proved they cannot Police the ones such as mobile phone use, speeding, drunk/drug drivers ect.........just carry on and enjoy with the hope that if they do add extra bodies on the ground,they will catch more law breakers whether they are driving or cycling. Law abiding people need not worry like everything in life,if you have nothing to hide then all is OK


----------



## Edwardoka (15 Aug 2018)

Julia9054 said:


> It is compulsory to ride on the cyclepath in France if there is one.


Is it??? I had no idea and I spent a month riding all day every day there. No-one batted an eyelid. The only non-obvious road law I was aware of was priorité à droite and it came up maybe twice.

Then again you are legally obliged to wear a helmet in Spain unless you're cycling uphill or in hot weather. (What constitutes hot weather or how you get the helmet to the top of the hill is never mentioned). Again, no-one batted an eyelid at my unhelmeted noggin en España.
Cycling laws are idiotic at best, moreso when inconsistently applied.


----------



## jarlrmai (15 Aug 2018)

isn't it kind of always hot in Spain, sounds like a classic not a rule until someone decides it is one day.

That's kind of my issue, they'll introduce the law then randomly impose it on some poor dude who rubs an officer the wrong way one day


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (15 Aug 2018)

Ok bring in all the licensing, testing and insurance. But bear in mind we're going to be on a level playing field after that. No more whining about 'slow' and 'in the way' and 'get on the cycle path' or 'you should be...' and all that other bullshit. We'll have all the so called 'rights' that the tin box brigade squeal about and think we don't have.

That's why it will never happen. The BDA and RHA would go nuts!


----------



## mjr (15 Aug 2018)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Ok bring in all the licensing, testing and insurance. But bear in mind we're going to be on a level playing field after that. No more whining about 'slow' and 'in the way' and 'get on the cycle path' or 'you should be...' and all that other bullshit. We'll have all the so called 'rights' that the tin box brigade squeal about and think we don't have.
> 
> That's why it will never happen. The BDA and RHA would go nuts!


Do you not realise that drivers still rant about L plate limited powered two wheelers?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (15 Aug 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> As some wag has pointed out on twitter, you're statistically more likely to be novichoked to death by a Russian agent than killed by a cyclist*, and as the recent case showed the laws are perfectly capable of prosecuting a reckless cyclist who does kill, even if they are "old" laws. So what? Lots of laws are old.
> 
> *So what possible justification can there be for devoting parliamentary change to this change in the law?*
> 
> ...



I think they're trying to divert the hatred people have for the govt for Brexit etc onto someone else. It's an image thing.


----------



## srw (15 Aug 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> And the sentiment is: get rid of cyclists, they are a menac


If only we had two potential future Prime Ministers who are well known to be cyclists and who could take time out to speak up for sensible lawmaking.


----------



## Edwardoka (15 Aug 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> So what possible justification can there be for devoting parliamentary change to this change in the law?


It's a kneejerk reaction to an emotive, high-profile case, by reactionaries who see a thing they don't like and want to clamp down on.

The news I watched earlier had lots of lingering cross-fade photos of Kim Briggs to make you empathise*. Contrast with the vast volume of normalised road deaths on a daily basis where it's a driverless car and the victim is at least partly to blame. ("in collision with")

The media and politicians hitching their wagons to this are massive hypocrites. They routinely ignore cases where drivers kill people on the pavement and instead focus on a single case from 2 years ago where someone stepped out into the road in front of a cyclist who wasn't able to slow down in time because his bike was unroadworthy and he was rightly imprisoned for what I would consider to be a open-and-shut case of involuntary manslaughter.

Ultimately the campaign and proposed legislation as it stands has *nothing *to do with road safety and everything to do with being seen to do something in a stern and authoritative manner.
</rant>

* I'm not unsympathetic, of course Matt Briggs wants to see a positive change come out of the tragic loss of his wife, but I don't think any change that is being talked about qualifies as even remotely positive.


----------



## dutchguylivingintheuk (15 Aug 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> As some wag has pointed out on twitter, you're statistically more likely to be novichoked to death by a Russian agent than killed by a cyclist*, and as the recent CA case showed the laws are perfectly capable of prosecuting a reckless cyclist who does kill, even if they are "old" laws. So what? Lots of laws are old.
> 
> So what possible justification can there be for devoting parliamentary time to this change in the law?
> 
> ...



The husband of the woman who was killed by that fixie lunatic is an active campaigner that in combination with politicians who can use a little distraction from their brexit failures can lead to things like this. Personally i don't think that there is anything wrong with laws only thing is that usually they make them unworkable. It would save a lot of lives if they start enforcing current laws for example the need to make yourself visible in the dark. The amount of times i had a near hit because the other cyclist did'nt think even a poundland light is needed in the dark.


----------



## Slick (15 Aug 2018)




----------



## mjr (15 Aug 2018)

dutchguylivingintheuk said:


> The amount of times i had a near hit because the other cyclist did'nt think even a poundland light is needed in the dark.


Why? Is your headlight too weak to see where you're going?


----------



## classic33 (15 Aug 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Woop woop. It's_ highly visible _where this thread is going.


But my million candlepower light should be enough for any rule change. Admit to failing to see that, I'd say you shouldn't be near the road.


----------



## winjim (15 Aug 2018)

The nights are drawing in...


----------



## dutchguylivingintheuk (15 Aug 2018)

mjr said:


> Why? Is your headlight too weak to see where you're going?


Obviously not since i wrote near hit, but thanks for your concern my brakes and lights are fine. But why do you make this personal it is an discussion about new laws not about how shiny and good my or your lights are. And my point is that without any lights people are badly visible.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (16 Aug 2018)

That's something, no one has mentioned compulsory hiviz laws yet.

(Feeble attempt to get the thread back on track).


----------



## mjr (16 Aug 2018)

dutchguylivingintheuk said:


> Obviously not since i wrote near hit, but thanks for your concern my brakes and lights are fine. But why do you make this personal it is an discussion about new laws not about how shiny and good my or your lights are. And my point is that without any lights people are badly visible.


And my point is that they are visible enough and our lights need to be good enough to see an unlit road surface and any unlit obstructions in it anyway. So you have two realistic options - better lights and slowing down - and anyway, requiring lights wouldn't be a new law!


----------



## winjim (16 Aug 2018)

[QUOTE 5350572, member: 9609"]have they drawn in enough to have one of those threads about cyclists you can't see cause they don't have lights[/QUOTE]

I can see it coming.


----------



## Salty seadog (16 Aug 2018)

winjim said:


> I can see it coming.



I saw that.....


----------



## classic33 (16 Aug 2018)

Anyone else tried to register a pedal cycle. Not too easy. 

In theory, it should be possible. The rules were/are there. Just connecting the rules proved the hard part.


----------



## Dan B (16 Aug 2018)

[QUOTE 5349137, member: 9609"]
but unfairness could be argued to already exist - Lorry driver and Teacher get caught drink driving in a car, one of those will loose their job as well as the right to drive.[/QUOTE]
I assume you mean the teacher, it didn't seem to be a problem for Dennis Putz


----------



## Cycleops (19 Aug 2018)

Puts me in mind of this film:







Anyone remember?


----------



## snorri (23 Aug 2018)

Mr Briggs calls in the LTDA on Twitter!
Please RT: Could I call upon the fine men & women of the @TheLTDA black cab trade to contribute to the consultation on new cycling laws? And thank you for the continued support & kindness you show me #londontaxis #kimbriggs


----------



## Edwardoka (23 Aug 2018)

snorri said:


> Mr Briggs calls in the LTDA on Twitter!
> Please RT: Could I call upon the fine men & women of the @TheLTDA black cab trade to contribute to the consultation on new cycling laws? And thank you for the continued support & kindness you show me #londontaxis #kimbriggs


I saw that and was glad to note that the cycling Twitterati leapt on it. Asking the LTDA for support in your road safety campaign is like asking Donald Trump to guard a cheeseburger.


----------



## sheddy (29 Aug 2018)

Cyclinguk 3min video & petition
https://action.cyclinguk.org/page/29156/action/1?ea.tracking.id=DE


----------



## Slick (29 Aug 2018)

sheddy said:


> Cyclinguk 3min video & petition
> https://action.cyclinguk.org/page/29156/action/1?ea.tracking.id=DE


Signed and sent both emails.


----------



## Edgy Dee (29 Aug 2018)

Slick said:


> Signed and sent both emails.


+1


----------



## snorri (5 Oct 2018)

DfT Open Consultation
https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...-causing-death-or-serious-injury-when-cycling

It would appear that the culpable homicide law in Scotland is already adequate to deal with naughty cyclists, although incidents are so rare that the law in relation to cyclists is seldom tested.
'The last prosecution of a cyclist for culpable and reckless conduct reported in the law reports was in 1956 in Scotland.'


----------



## Slick (6 Oct 2018)

snorri said:


> DfT Open Consultation
> https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...-causing-death-or-serious-injury-when-cycling
> 
> It would appear that the culpable homicide law in Scotland is already adequate to deal with naughty cyclists, although incidents are so rare that the law in relation to cyclists is seldom tested.
> 'The last prosecution of a cyclist for culpable and reckless conduct reported in the law reports was in 1956 in Scotland.'


Have you completed the consultation?


*Drivers may be banned from driving for committing a current cycling offence. Minimum driving disqualification periods currently apply under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. For drivers this is currently 2 years for causing death or serious injury, 1 year for causing death by careless driving. Do you think this should also apply to any of the new offences proposed in this consultation?*

Is this already a thing or am I misunderstanding that cyclists who drive could be banned from driving for an offence on a bike?


----------



## snorri (6 Oct 2018)

Slick said:


> Have you completed the consultation?
> Is this already a thing or am I misunderstanding that cyclists who drive could be banned from driving for an offence on a bike?


a) Not yet, it's a bit heavy going, and I'm no legal expert!
b) It would appear that way, this is something new. A naughty cyclist who holds a driving licence could receive a double penalty, ie a fine and a driving ban, whereas a non driving cyclist would only receive a fine, seems unreasonable.
Should naughty drivers face a cycling ban as well as a fine for their driving offence?
This consultation needs some legal expertise to translate for the masses.


----------



## Slick (6 Oct 2018)

snorri said:


> a) Not yet, it's a bit heavy going, and I'm no legal expert!
> b) It would appear that way, this is something new. A naughty cyclist who holds a driving licence could receive a double penalty, ie a fine and a driving ban, whereas a non driving cyclist would only receive a fine, seems unreasonable.
> Should naughty drivers face a cycling ban as well as a fine for their driving offence?
> This consultation needs some legal expertise to translate for the masses.


I completed it but included the questions you mention and a few others. 

Thanks for posting the link.


----------



## jarlrmai (10 Oct 2018)

Bad drivers should banned from walking, for balance you know.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Oct 2018)

jarlrmai said:


> Bad drivers should banned from walking, for balance you know.


Off with their legs


----------



## Andy_R (10 Oct 2018)

Drivers who commit crimes against cyclists should be made to walk a mile in a cyclist's shoes......preferably SPD SLs


----------



## al78 (3 Nov 2018)

Drago said:


> I ain't got a problem with it - people that behave like twots should be dealt with accordingly, regardless of their mode of transport. Just because some other sector of society may also be a naughty now and again is no reason not to do it - *that's the school playground level of logic.*



It isn't even logic.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as

It is not a fallacy if it can be shown the attempt to modify laws relating to cycling is really used as a distraction, rather than part of a general attempt to improve road safety, which may be what some fear. If government decide to clamp down on cycling offences, are they doing it out of safety concerns, or to appeal to the Daily Mail type voters? The former motivation is good, the latter is dreadful.


----------



## GaGa (19 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Aren't most pavements so lumpy that "high speed" cycling would result in an embarrassing hospital visit to have the saddle extracted?


You wouldn't be able to cycle on the pavements around here, they're full of cars.


----------



## Mike_P (20 Nov 2018)

Have to admit to cycling on a pavement on Sunday; the exit from a country park car park has a concrete drainage depression across it that is impossible to cycle over on anything that is not a MTB. On the way in a grate provides a route pass it. The country park provides a useful link between two roads that are otherwise about four times further apart and with much up and down.


----------

