Reckless Cyclists Should Face the Consequences

[Adasta]

Here's the article. I've actually written a quick reply to the MP in question, which I post below for everyone to cluck their tongues over and tell me where I went wrong!

I do, however, urge anyone with a spare ten minutes to write an email to the lady by clicking here. It's important to lobby those in power.

Dear Ms Andrea Leadsom MP,

I read with great interest the aforementioned article. As a keen cyclist on London's busy roads, I often see many traffic offences committed on a daily basis: people jumping red lights; operating vehicles without due care and attention; use of inadequate lighting (or using no lighting at all). These offences apply to both cyclists and motorists. While I agree with what I believe lies at the heart of your article - that the Road Traffic Act should be updated - I think your focus is perhaps too narrow and the distinctions you draw too finite.

You mention that '[c]ausing death by dangerous driving carries a penalty of one to 14 years in prison [and] causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving carries a penalty of up to five years in prison': how many of these cases result in the maximum sentence? A cursory glance at a few internet pages shows* that it is often the case that dangerous driving goes unpunished; at best the offenders receive an extremely light sentence. In the case of the cyclist you mention in your article, it is clear that he broke the law: cycling on the pavement is illegal. However, this case should be regarded for what it is: a vehicle which, by illegally mounting the pavement, caused the death of a pedestrian. Focus on the road user as a cyclist does little to promote safety on our roads; rather, it further stigmatises cyclists who would be once again regarded as being "other" to motorists.

While I certainly agree that dangerous cyclists should be punished, I would much rather hope that all users of the country's roads were punished for any reckless behaviour. A battle between cyclists and motorists does not exist, but one for the safety of our roads does. With this in mind, I sincerely hope that you will campaign for greater regulation and enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts and that the distinction between road cyclist and motorist is rescinded due to its redundancy.

Yours sincerely,

The * refers to the article below, which I attach with the email:

1

2

3

 

[2Loose]

Well put.

What is she on about. She states, "In my view, if a motorist had driven onto a pavement and killed a teenager there would have been a national outcry if the driver had walked away with only a fine. ", but this kind of death is rarely mentioned when a driver does this to a ped or a bike. No idea why she thinks a cyclist could cause a 'national outcry' by doing the same.

She also states "I think we should give justice to the small number of pedestrians killed each year by dangerous cycling ...", are there a few each year? I remember only one in the last few years.

Hmm.

 

[BSRU]

Well put.

What is she on about. She states, "In my view, if a motorist had driven onto a pavement and killed a teenager there would have been a national outcry if the driver had walked away with only a fine. ", but this kind of death is rarely mentioned when a driver does this to a ped or a bike. No idea why she thinks a cyclist could cause a 'national outcry' by doing the same.

She also states "I think we should give justice to the small number of pedestrians killed each year by dangerous cycling ...", are there a few each year? I remember only one in the last few years.

Hmm.

I think there has been 3 in the period 1999 to 2009, not very many but still 3 too many.

 

[ROG.]

begs the question ....
which is safer for most - cyclists mixing with vehicles or cyclists mixing with pedestrians??
If the latter then why does the law require cyclists to do the first?

 

[Adasta]

begs the question ....
which is safer for most - cyclists mixing with vehicles or cyclists mixing with pedestrians??
If the latter then why does the law require cyclists to do the first?

I would posit that it would be much safer for pedestrians if all vehicles were confined to the road.

 

[seadragonpisces]

i agree it shouldnt matter what vehicle is it.

At the weekend, on the old A10 near Digswell in Herts, a group of about 40 cyclists went through a stop sign at serious speed, didnt bother to slow down and almost caused an accident with another car and myself. They then proceeded to ride 3-4 abreast and act all bolshy and that really peed me off, w****rs.

If some people were considerate then there wouldnt be this animosity between cyclists and drivers, rant over

 

[ROG.]

I think my point was missed ...

Vehicles are on the road
Pedestrians are on the pavement

What is the safest place to put the cycle rider where injuries to anybody will be minor ones?

 

[Riverman]

I commend you for your activism and enthusiasm. I must say though I don't agree with you about cycling on pavements. Frankly I think it's utterly ridiculous to make cycling on pavements illegal although I accept the nuances of such an argument would be lost on many politicians thus it's almost pointless trying to argue it. I mean by all means punish cyclists who cycle recklessly on pavements but to completely ban bikes from pavements is like taking a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. Moreover, yes bikes are vehicles but they are very different from cars and the law should reflect this. I'm sure you'd argue that in other cases so why not in the case of pavement use?

I also can't stand the power trip these laws give our local police force. What is so bad about someone cycling very slowly on a pavement (sometimes even slower than the speed of pedestrians!) that it requires the police to 'crack down' on it, issue fines and threaten a criminal record?

As for using this blanket ban to deter reckless cyclists, it simply doesn't work. Southampton is littered with these bloody signs threatening fines and people just ignore them anyway. And who would want to give a £100 fine to a young teenager anyway?

The police need to spend more of their limited resources catching real criminals not wasting tax payers money on a campaign to 'crack down' on pavement cyclists.

 

[Adasta]

I commend you for your activism and enthusiasm. I must say though I don't agree with you about cycling on pavements. Frankly I think it's utterly ridiculous to make cycling on pavements illegal although I accept the nuances of such an argument would be lost on many politicians thus it's almost pointless trying to argue it. I mean by all means punish cyclists who cycle recklessly on pavements but to completely ban bikes from pavements is like taking a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. Moreover, yes bikes are vehicles but they are very different from cars and the law should reflect this. I'm sure you'd argue that in other cases so why not in the case of pavement use?

I also can't stand the power trip these laws give our local police force. What is so bad about someone cycling very slowly on a pavement (sometimes even slower than the speed of pedestrians!) that it requires the police to 'crack down' on it, issue fines and threaten a criminal record?

As for using this blanket ban to deter reckless cyclists, it simply doesn't work. Southampton is littered with these bloody signs threatening fines and people just ignore them anyway. And who would want to give a £100 fine to a young teenager anyway?

The police need to spend more of their limited resources catching real criminals not wasting tax payers money on a campaign to 'crack down' on pavement cyclists.

One thing at a time and that well done, as the saying goes.

I've got nothing against cycling on the pavement in principle. However, attitudes to cycling are not such that I would feel right condoning pavement cycling. If it were the case that everyone who cycled was conscientious and rode a bike that was fit for the road/path, I would feel better about it. In that way, I think segregating pavement cycling and road cycling is a good thing because, when mixing with traffic, it would much simpler to convey why having a sound bike and cycling competently would be better for everyone concerned.

At the moment I think the more pressing concern is to change attitudes towards cycling. I believe that focusing on driver attitudes to cyclists on the road would be the most pertinent course of action since, if drivers felt more comfortable with cyclists, they wouldn't be so annoyed if they encountered on the path (when these drivers are pedestrians, so to speak).

With regards to the "activism" - it doesn't take me much to write a 10 minute email! I think more people need to realise that their MP is obliged to read all communication s/he receives so it's worthwhile writing even a two sentence email simply to read the response.

 

[Riverman]

One thing at a time and that well done, as the saying goes.

I've got nothing against cycling on the pavement in principle. However, attitudes to cycling are not such that I would feel right condoning pavement cycling. If it were the case that everyone who cycled was conscientious and rode a bike that was fit for the road/path, I would feel better about it. In that way, I think segregating pavement cycling and road cycling is a good thing because, when mixing with traffic, it would much simpler to convey why having a sound bike and cycling competently would be better for everyone concerned.

At the moment I think the more pressing concern is to change attitudes towards cycling. I believe that focusing on driver attitudes to cyclists on the road would be the most pertinent course of action since, if drivers felt more comfortable with cyclists, they wouldn't be so annoyed if they encountered on the path (when these drivers are pedestrians, so to speak).

With regards to the "activism" - it doesn't take me much to write a 10 minute email! I think more people need to realise that their MP is obliged to read all communication s/he receives so it's worthwhile writing even a two sentence email simply to read the response.

I think the debate is about public safety and right now as you'll agree the real threat to public safety is from cars. The figures speak for themselves; it is extremely rare for a cyclist to kill or injure a pedestrian so I see no need to make cycling on pavements illegal. By that rationale, we would ban cars from roads because they kill people. And bar motorways, it is not illegal to walk on a road.

A blanket ban is very authoritarian and can impact upon cyclists' ability to move freely around a city and I believe quite unnecessarily criminalises otherwise law abiding citizens. That said, I don't go around campaigning for a change in the law because I know full well how my views would be treated by the chattering classes. However, sometimes when I read such tripe as that written by this Tory MP, I'm tempted to go on the offensive. She clearly has a real disdain for cyclists in general, as you can gauge from the tone of the article. To gloss over the dangers posed by cars to public safety in an attempt to smear cyclists is irresponsible and made worse by the fact she's a politician.

 

[brokenbetty]

I'm with Adasta on this. Here and now, pedestrians tell us again and again that cyclists on paths make them feel unsafe.

The fact that cyclists don't usually injure pedestrians does not give us the right to invade their space, any more than the fact that 99.99% of close overtakes of cyclists by cars pass without incidence means it's ok for drivers to make them.

Not cycling on pavements does not restrict a cyclist's movement. The beauty of a bike is that if you need to cross a pedestrian area you can swing your leg over and switch to walking.

First get the roads safe enough for cyclists doing 5mph or more to be comfortable on the road, then deal with any residual need to cycle on pavements. Do it the other way and you will never get the roads back.

 

[ROG.]

Perhaps a new option should be legally available by putting the responsibilty of where is safest to ride in the hands of the cycle rider

IMO - It's a bit silly having a law that says cycle riders must use a very busy or narrow road when there is an empty pavement at the side of it
Although there does seem to be more tolerance of this sort of thing in my area by the authorities so perhaps common sense is being used in places

 

[brokenbetty]

IMO - It's a bit silly having a law that says cycle riders must use a very busy or narrow road when there is an empty pavement at the side of it

So lobby your council for a shared path where peds know to expect cyclists. Make a positive change for everyone, don't just pick and choose which laws you follow based on your own convenience.

 

[Riverman]

I'm with Adasta on this. Here and now, pedestrians tell us again and again that cyclists on paths make them feel unsafe.

The fact that cyclists don't usually injure pedestrians does not give us the right to invade their space, any more than the fact that 99.99% of close overtakes of cyclists by cars pass without incidence means it's ok for drivers to make them.

We're talking about criminalising cyclists for merely using a pavement not reckless cycling. There is a clear difference and it should be recognised in law. It is not reckless to cycle on pavements. No matter how pedestrians feel about cyclists that does not give the state the right to criminalise us for using a path.

Not cycling on pavements does not restrict a cyclist's movement. The beauty of a bike is that if you need to cross a pedestrian area you can swing your leg over and switch to walking.

It restricts cyclist movement by definition. And again I stress the point about criminalisation. IMO it is completely absurd to criminalise someone because they don't "swing their leg over a bicycle and switch to walking". If local councils want to create local by laws that achieve this then that's up to them but personally I don't think it's the job of the state to legislate on stuff like this unless cycling on pavements becomes a major threat to public safety.

I may sound a bit angry on here because I'll admit it pisses me off, especially here where the police seem intent on fining us but I generally think the way to approach this is one of mutual tolerance. I believe most peds are happy with people cycling on pavements and would rather they weren' criminalised or fined for doingso as they know most aren't reckless. It's more likely to be the little scrotes on Tesco BSO's and BMX bikes that are the problem imo, not us lot. And criminalising or fining our nations youth isn't the solution to this either.

 

[gaz]

Nice, but one big error in my books. With regards to the case she mentions where a cyclist knocked over a pedestrian and she later died in hospital. It was not proven that the cyclist was riding on the pavement. Have a look into that case and you will be surprised as to how much the group of girls tried to stur up the situation with legailties of how the cyclist was riding.