New offences for cyclists/cycling

[Drago]

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,

And that stick can be used against motorists too.

Certainly as far as resourcing goes, I have first hand experience as a police sergeant and - briefly - acting inspector. A lack of evidence will result in a lack of priority for resources. The reasons for the lack of evidence are utterly immaterial when the scrambled egg ranks make their resourcing decision.

The only time that changes is with political attention or interference, the former usually from MPs who may be nosing in on behalf of constituents, the latter from central government or the home orifice.

Almost universally any response to this by the police will be ad hockey from individual bobbies on their own initiative when they witness something in front of them. With the exception of sporadically in parts of London, there will be no concerted or organised attempt to target cyclists over these measures.

 

[T4tomo]

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

I used to get more dazzled by cyclists with stupid chinese lights shining at silly angles than any car lights, because car lights are manufactured to a standard with dipped beams, whereas any fool can slap a 60 trillion lumen torch onto their handlebars.

 

[mjr]

I used to get more dazzled by cyclists with stupid chinese lights shining at silly angles than any car lights, because car lights are manufactured to a standard with dipped beams, whereas any fool can slap a 60 trillion lumen torch onto their handlebars.

That's not been the case for me recently because now any fool can stuff an headlight-bulb-shaped 60-trillion lumen torch into their car headlight mount, and they increasingly do. Those are totally illegal and contributing to I reckon about a quarter of cars now don't have a properly-aimed dipped beam, based on what I saw on my recent coast-to-coast drives to visit family while trains were stopped for maintenance and upgrades. Some of those may be people reaching the awkward headlight aim adjusters as they attempt to make them shine further ahead and messing it up, but a hell of a lot will be the very widespread cheap "LED upgrade kits" bought online which are causing this arms race anyway.

And have you seen that SUV advert which says something like "50,000 superbright LEDs" as a selling point for the obnoxious tank?

It's really not worth worrying about the odd eejit on a bike with a torch when lunacy like that is being allowed on fiddle panzers.

 

[Katana]

Like anything else in life you get to see examples of good bad & the ugly. I sometimes see these lunatics riding MTB’s on pavements and doing wheelies on narrow canal paths with no consideration for other cyclists and pedestrians alike.Unfortunately these rotten ones give bad name to responsible cyclists. However I think worst examples nowadays are delivery guys with motorised bikes and Neds with face coverings on bikes which are more like motorcross bikes doing crazy speeds and I think those are the ones which need to dealt with swiftly by the police as not only they are risk to the wellbeing and safety of public but also involved in serious crimes!

 

[Red17]

With the exception of sporadically in parts of London, there will be no concerted or organised attempt to target cyclists over these measures.

I expect we will see the first organised targeting in the Royal Parks

 

[Gwylan]

Wonder how the education courses will be run, and by who.

Do they give away free suits or glasses?

Nests will no doubt be feathered. Careers boosted.
Will need an Ombudsman, and other jobs for the boys and girls.
Government Cycling Industry liaison committee. The need for endless study visits to sunny areas.
International seminars ...
Of course there will be the Office of Public Cycling. Separate for Wales, Scotland and may not apply in N Ireland because of B.

Suggest your layer of admin ..

 

[Dogtrousers]

I for one am looking forward to having some new offences. I'm bored with the old ones.

 

[cyberknight]

That's not been the case for me recently because now any fool can stuff an headlight-bulb-shaped 60-trillion lumen torch into their car headlight mount, and they increasingly do. Those are totally illegal and contributing to I reckon about a quarter of cars now don't have a properly-aimed dipped beam, based on what I saw on my recent coast-to-coast drives to visit family while trains were stopped for maintenance and upgrades. Some of those may be people reaching the awkward headlight aim adjusters as they attempt to make them shine further ahead and messing it up, but a hell of a lot will be the very widespread cheap "LED upgrade kits" bought online which are causing this arms race anyway.

And have you seen that SUV advert which says something like "50,000 superbright LEDs" as a selling point for the obnoxious tank?

It's really not worth worrying about the odd eejit on a bike with a torch when lunacy like that is being allowed on fiddle panzers.

indeed, its so bad i honestly think people drive round with the main beam on but nope its they dipped lights dazzling oncoming traffic and go forbid they actually put the main beam on and leave you no option but to come to a halt as you cant see anything else .

 

[mjr]

indeed, its so bad i honestly think people drive round with the main beam on but nope its they dipped lights dazzling oncoming traffic and go forbid they actually put the main beam on and leave you no option but to come to a halt as you cant see anything else .

Near Stratford upon Avon, I was followed for a while by a car with its main beam on. Annoying but the mirrors dim quickly. Oncoming traffic was less happy and flashed lots. One retaliated by putting their main beam on until the following car dipped and then the reason became clear: both dip bulbs had failed and they only had side lights on a quasi motorway. What kind of plonker doesn't immediately head for a service station (we'd not long passed one) and buy two new bulbs in that situation? You wouldn't have much choice of bulb type or price, but you'd be able to see without breaking the law in a pretty dangerous way, dazzling oncoming traffic.

 

[oldandslow]

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.

Thanks. Those responses are helpful. I've no issue with laws being enforced.

But there is worrying evidence that good practice such as primary position is misunderstood by many as dangerous. Specialist traffic officers might(?) be trained to know better, but is there a possibility of cyclists being stopped for riding well, and not feeling able to contest the fixed penalties? Which would not arise in court. Conversely however we don't want court time wasted.

Not quite the same, but we have a "pedestrianisation" scheme in town. It's not; it's a motor-vehicle exclusion order (I've seen it). That didn't prevent wrongly-briefed police officers from stopping a friend of mine for cycling through legitimately on the first day of the scheme. Years later, I was still challenging council wardens who didn't understand the difference. Signs at the entrance were contradictory for at least a decade. If officials don't understand this stuff, you do get a bit nervous about enforcement.

 

[Punkawallah]

Thanks. Those responses are helpful. I've no issue with laws being enforced.

But there is worrying evidence that good practice such as primary position is misunderstood by many as dangerous. Specialist traffic officers might(?) be trained to know better, but is there a possibility of cyclists being stopped for riding well, and not feeling able to contest the fixed penalties? Which would not arise in court. Conversely however we don't want court time wasted.

Not quite the same, but we have a "pedestrianisation" scheme in town. It's not; it's a motor-vehicle exclusion order (I've seen it). That didn't prevent wrongly-briefed police officers from stopping a friend of mine for cycling through legitimately on the first day of the scheme. Years later, I was still challenging council wardens who didn't understand the difference. Signs at the entrance were contradictory for at least a decade. If officials don't understand this stuff, you do get a bit nervous about enforcement.

Fun fact. We have over 400 ‘offences’ on the books, for which you may become criminalised. While ignorance is no excuse under the law, the police seem to struggle with applying these. What chance do the public have?

 

[a.twiddler]

While those who are aware of these changes wring their hands in angst and fulminate against them, the ones they're intended to regulate will just carry on blissfully unaware of anything unless some resources are made available to do something about it. Probably nothing will change, but those who worry about such things can say "we've done something". Hum de ho.

 

[PK99]

I expect we will see the first organised targeting in the Royal Parks

Hopefully.

There is a subset of cyclists in Royal Parks whose inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour needs to change.

 

[mjr]

There is a subset of cyclists in Royal Parks whose inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour needs to change.

Maybe. But I'm not sure that giving them more power to issue fixed penalties solves that. 😉🤡

 

[a.twiddler]

It strikes me that this whole thing has a tang of London -centricity about it since a lot of the cyclist hate thing is a lot less pronounced in other parts of the country. For most of the population, the Royal Parks situation is virtually meaningless.