Cycling laws to be overhauled.

[night cycler]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.