Cycling laws to be overhauled.

[srw]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

Savage.

 

[Milkfloat]

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.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

On both occasions I was moving at about 16mph.

Which could have been too fast under the circumstances

 

[flake99please]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!?