Cycling laws to be overhauled.

[chriswoody]

[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.

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]

Spotter's guide to Radler:

 

[chriswoody]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.