Ban cyclists and e-scooter riders using phones, Tory peer urges.

[SpokeyDokey]

Usual defensiveness and deflection from some members of the cycling community.

Based on reading various CC threads over the years I come to the following conclusions.

As I understand it; it's okay to have a phone clamped to your ear when cycling; ergo cycling without fully concentrating, it's okay for cyclists not to have at least third party insurance cover, it's okay for cyclists to use public roads without any knowledge of the Highway Code or having demonstrated any road craft ability whatsoever and it's okay to cycle at night dressed in full ninja black without any lights on a bike.

And some cyclists wonder why many motorists take a dim view of them. ☹️

 

[matticus]

Usual defensiveness and deflection from some members of the cycling community.

Based on reading various CC threads over the years I come to the following conclusions.

As I understand it; it's okay to have a phone clamped to your ear when cycling ... <SNIP> ...

Bollox. Should I bother reading the rest?

 

[icowden]

As I understand it; it's okay to have a phone clamped to your ear when cycling; ergo cycling without fully concentrating, it's okay for cyclists not to have at least third party insurance cover, it's okay for cyclists to use public roads without any knowledge of the Highway Code or having demonstrated any road craft ability whatsoever and it's okay to cycle at night dressed in full ninja black without any lights on a bike.

Then, as was pointed out before, you misunderstand completely.

Nobody has said that any of those issue should be acceptable. What they have said, is that legislation to criminalise these behaviours is pointless and over the top. There are perfectly good offences available for extreme cases, and in the vast majority of situations the only person likely to be injured is the cyclist themselves. We encourage people to cycle sensibly as do the Police. If you cycle illegally the police will charge you based on the situation.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Bollox. Should I bother reading the rest?

Grow up. 👍

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Then, as was pointed out before, you misunderstand completely.

Nobody has said that any of those issue should be acceptable. What they have said, is that legislation to criminalise these behaviours is pointless and over the top. There are perfectly good offences available for extreme cases, and in the vast majority of situations the only person likely to be injured is the cyclist themselves. We encourage people to cycle sensibly as do the Police. If you cycle illegally the police will charge you based on the situation.

Trawl the relevant CC threads over at least the past decade or so for opinions on the aforementioned matters.

 

[newfhouse]

As I understand it

I respectfully suggest that your understanding may be in error. Here’s why:

it's okay to have a phone clamped to your ear when cycling; ergo cycling without fully concentrating,

It’s not something that requires specific legislation. All road users have a duty to take care of themselves and others.

it's okay for cyclists not to have at least third party insurance cover

Yes it is. It’s just not necessary, any more than it would be for pedestrians. How could children contract for such insurance?

it's okay for cyclists to use public roads without any knowledge of the Highway Code or having demonstrated any road craft ability whatsoever

Yes it is, although it is easier to be a courteous road user if you understand the Highway Code.

it's okay to cycle at night dressed in full ninja black

Not only possible, but incredibly stylish too. Black is cool.

without any lights on a bike

Inadvisable in many circumstances and already an offence.

 

[Jody]

As I understand it; it's okay to have a phone clamped to your ear when cycling; ergo cycling without fully concentrating, it's okay for cyclists not to have at least third party insurance cover, it's okay for cyclists to use public roads without any knowledge of the Highway Code or having demonstrated any road craft ability whatsoever and it's okay to cycle at night dressed in full ninja black without any lights on a bike.

And some cyclists wonder why many motorists take a dim view of them. ☹️

So much wow in one post.

 

[matticus]

Grow up. 👍

I guess that's a No!

 

[Arrowfoot]

No sure why we turning this into motorists vs cyclists. We should ping them both. Arguments stating law exist that is rather wide and can be interpreted or misinterpreted in many ways is not going to help. Both should have same legalese. Arguments like one is a tank and the other is rather plastic as in carbon fibre are also shallow. Some entitled Baroness or a grave digger that raised it is besides the point.

Even if cyclists hurts himself, one penny of mine will be wasted via the NHS.

 

[matticus]

it's okay for cyclists not to have at least third party insurance cover,

Correct. Well done - perhaps your post wasn't entirely bolllox!

 

[mjr]

No sure why we turning this into motorists vs cyclists.

We're not. Baroness McIntosh of Pickering did. Full transcript at https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2022-04-06b.2146.0&s=speaker:10389#g2146.2 includes "equating road offences caused by cyclists, e-bikes and e-scooters with those caused by other motor vehicles". The noble lady appears ignorant that cyclists, e-bikes and legal trial e-scooters are not motor vehicles in law.

We should ping them both. Arguments stating law exist that is rather wide and can be interpreted or misinterpreted in many ways is not going to help. Both should have same legalese.

They have never had the same legalese and there is no good argument for it. Cycles have been regarded legally as basically horseless horses almost since their invention, whereas motor vehicles were regarded as a type of locomotive machine propelling a carriage. In general, this has worked well and we should oppose attacks on this fine tradition.

Arguments like one is a tank and the other is rather plastic as in carbon fibre are also shallow.

Shallow but entirely correct?

Some entitled Baroness or a grave digger that raised it is besides the point.

Not really because the grave digger cannot fark the law up as easily.

Even if cyclists hurts himself, one penny of mine will be wasted via the NHS.

Better that than for each person deterred or fined out of cycling, many pounds of yours will be wasted via the NHS!

 

[Dogtrousers]

As I understand it; it's okay to have a phone clamped to your ear when cycling; ergo cycling without fully concentrating,

Show me one post that has said, or even implied that. Just one. Just one that is even in the same ballpark.

 

[All uphill]

It seems to me that two arguments are being offered in favour of regulating cyclists in the same way as users of motorised vehicles:

1 Consistency, all road users " should" be held to the same standards.

2 Safety. That increasing the regulation on cyclists will increase the safety of the general public.

Both of these arguments are worth testing.

1 Should the cars be limited to the same speeds as the tractor and trailer I met on a NSL lane this morning?
Should HGVs be allowed to drive at 70mph in lane 3 of the motorway?
Should cars be taxed at the same level as HGVs?
I think the answer is "No" but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who says "Yes".

2 As many others have said I'd be interested in the evidence that demonstrates cyclists on the phone are a top safety risk that could not be tackled using existing laws.

My final observation is that deregulation has been a priority in the UK for more than ten years. How do the proposed new laws fit with that agenda?

 

[PK99]

We're not. Baroness McIntosh of Pickering did. Full transcript at https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2022-04-06b.2146.0&s=speaker:10389#g2146.2 includes "equating road offences caused by cyclists, e-bikes and e-scooters with those caused by other motor vehicles". The noble lady appears ignorant that cyclists, e-bikes and legal trial e-scooters are not motor vehicles in law.

May I congratulate you on an exemplary piece of selective and out of context quoting:

The full paragraph is:

I pay tribute to Matt Briggs, who lost his wife in February 2016. She was mown down while crossing the road, completely innocently, by a cyclist who caused injury by means of wanton or furious driving, which is the case the prosecution brought. It was an illegally-used bicycle—it had no brakes. As of yet, this issue of equating road offences caused by cyclists, e-bikes and e-scooters with those caused by other motor vehicles has not been addressed.

 

[newfhouse]

My final observation is that deregulation has been a priority in the UK for more than ten years. How do the proposed new laws fit with that agenda?

They want to deregulate themselves, not the likes of us.