Cycling laws to be overhauled.

[Threevok]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

@classic33, who is it?

 

[classic33]

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]

“
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?

Fair point about method of killing