New offences for cyclists/cycling

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

PeteXXX

Cake or ice cream? The choice is endless ...
Location
Hamtun
Screenshot_20250128-200427~2.png


~ Road CC link ~
 
FFS. More farking anti cyclist bull sh!t. If they cared about actual road safety they'd put just a little more effort into policing and enforcing existing laws to curtail the traffic violence currently delivered upon us by drivers of motor vehicles. A policy which might also probably have the added benefit of encouraging more people out of their cars and on to bikes - reducing congestion and making the world a better place to live in. But no.
 

oldandslow

Veteran
It does seem like pandering to the motoring lobby, in that most of those things are already offences and they aren't enforced. What's the point of adding more offences in that situation? But some are really broadly worded - cycling dangerously? In whose opinion? When lots of people think that basic steps in safe cycling, such as the primary position, are dangerous?

Why target overly bright cycle lights when car lights are such an issue too?
 

Alex321

Guru
Location
South Wales
They aren't adding offences, they are changing the potential penalties for committing those offences.

For instance, sections 28 & 29 (cycling dangerously and cycling carelessly or inconsiderately) of the RTA currently carry a sentence of a fine at level 4 in the RTRA. They will now have the option of an education course (presumably similar to the speed awareness course for drivers) or a fixed penalty.
 

Alex321

Guru
Location
South Wales
It does seem like pandering to the motoring lobby, in that most of those things are already offences and they aren't enforced. What's the point of adding more offences in that situation? But some are really broadly worded - cycling dangerously? In whose opinion? When lots of people think that basic steps in safe cycling, such as the primary position, are dangerous?

It is defined in the law as:
or the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—

(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and

(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.

Why target overly bright cycle lights when car lights are such an issue too?
They aren't doing so. AFAIK, there is no maximum for bike lights any more than there is for car lights.

They are adding similar penalties for riding without lights between sunset and sunrise to the ones they are adding for riding dangerously.

These changes probably will mean a bit more enforcement, if the copper can just hand outa fixed penalty, rather tha n having to go to court over it.

But I don't think it is anything for most of us to worry about.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
These changes probably will mean a bit more enforcement, if the copper can just hand outa fixed penalty, rather tha n having to go to court over it.

But I don't think it is anything for most of us to worry about.
I suggest more enforcement against cyclists is something to worry about because there is not infinite police time, so this effort will be at the expense of other policing, likely roads policing, likely enforcement against motorists.

It is unjust to be making enforcement against those doing less harm easier, while doing nothing to ease enforcement against the more frequent killers.

It's a bit like requiring corner shops to see two forms of ID to buy a craft knife while doing nothing about the firm posting zombie knives out without checking any ID.
 

Alex321

Guru
Location
South Wales
I suggest more enforcement against cyclists is something to worry about because there is not infinite police time, so this effort will be at the expense of other policing, likely roads policing, likely enforcement against motorists.

It is unjust to be making enforcement against those doing less harm easier, while doing nothing to ease enforcement against the more frequent killers.

It's a bit like requiring corner shops to see two forms of ID to buy a craft knife while doing nothing about the firm posting zombie knives out without checking any ID.

I don't think there will be much more enforcement, just a few situations where you might have had a verbal warning and will now get a fixed penalty (orr the offer of a course).

I doubt very much that it would be enough to make any measurable difference to police resources used.
 

Drago

Legendary Member
Mind you, it could work in our favour.

It won't go enforced, and in  X years when someone asks there will have been very few tickets issued or prosecutions, the numbers this depriving the dibble of a reason to expend further resources on the matter as under Cbbage of Policing guidance everything they do is supposed to be evidence based.

No evidence = no justification for continuing any converted effort in that direction.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Mind you, it could work in our favour.

It won't go enforced, and in  X years when someone asks there will have been very few tickets issued or prosecutions, the numbers this depriving the dibble of a reason to expend further resources on the matter as under Cbbage of Policing guidance everything they do is supposed to be evidence based.

No evidence = no justification for continuing any converted effort in that direction.
Oh come on, you're not that green! It'll be used as evidence that too many cyclists are evading enforcement or being let off with warnings, because every driver sees dozens of black-clad unlit cyclists every ride drive and it's absolutely not that they're hallucinating things from shadows because they haven't had an eye test since they were at school.

(Edited to avoid saying that drivers ride their cars.)
 
Top Bottom