Cycling law review

[Midnight]

Reported this morning on the BBC. In the wake of recent fatal accidents, the government are to look at reviewing dangerous cycling laws. I hope the scope extends to cycling on towpaths and to those who encourage cycling in areas where cycling is incompatible with pedestrians.

"Announcing the move, the government said there had been a "series of high-profile incidents" involving cyclists and that in 2015, two pedestrians had been killed and 96 seriously injured after being hit by a bicycle."

Mr Parry should be nervous!

Edited September 21, 2017 by Midnight

[Señor Chris]

7 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I hope the scope extends to cycling on towpaths

It won't - it's not dangerous.

[roland elsdon]

Political brexit distraction deal with that and the 25% who drive  while on twatter farce book and buybay first. Including the victim of one incident who may have been screen gazing by report

[dmr]

I think we should try to lobby the enquiry to request that towpaths are included in any new laws.

...............Dave

[mrsmelly]

2 hours ago, Señor Chris said:

It won't - it's not dangerous.

Cycling on the towpath is not dangerous per se but there are without doubt a significant number of arrogant dangerous plonkers out there on cycles on towpaths. I had a very very close encounter with one such plonker last summer who was doing 20 plus mph as he approached my boat on a narrow section of towpath after tearing past a line of moored boats with people with kids and dogs around. He was stopped and given advice. 

[cuthound]

7 minutes ago, dmr said:

I think we should try to lobby the enquiry to request that towpaths are included in any new laws.

...............Dave

Or better still any place where the public are present, so there is no wriggle room.

Hopefully it is the first step to getting compulsory registation and insurance for cyclists, to bring them into line with other road users. 

[peterboat]

24 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Cycling on the towpath is not dangerous per se but there are without doubt a significant number of arrogant dangerous plonkers out there on cycles on towpaths. I had a very very close encounter with one such plonker last summer who was doing 20 plus mph as he approached my boat on a narrow section of towpath after tearing past a line of moored boats with people with kids and dogs around. He was stopped and given advice. 

With a boathook?

[Sir Nibble]

Whatever laws may be introduced, they will,like the rest of the highway code simply not apply to cyclists. Bring in a rule that you must maintain at least one metre of separation when overtaking and the cycle lobby will say. "two surely" tell them it also applies to cyclists overtaking and they will roar with laughter.

[dmr]

32 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Cycling on the towpath is not dangerous per se but there are without doubt a significant number of arrogant dangerous plonkers out there on cycles on towpaths. I had a very very close encounter with one such plonker last summer who was doing 20 plus mph as he approached my boat on a narrow section of towpath after tearing past a line of moored boats with people with kids and dogs around. He was stopped and given advice. 

Trouble is, the rude inconsiderate and dangerous minority is quite a large minority and in a few locations is possibly now the majority. There is also an increasing minority who genuinely believe that the towpath is their cycleway (or cycletrack as they sometimes call it) and that other users who are intruders who should no be there and should be treated with contempt.

I estimate that we witness one or two significant cycle related accidents every year, are verbally abused by a cyclist once or twice each year and have to urgently jump out of the way of a speeding cyclist once per year. I estimate that we witness an act of inconsiderate cycling about once per week.

................Dave

[David Schweizer]

3 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Whatever laws may be introduced, they will,like the rest of the highway code simply not apply to cyclists. Bring in a rule that you must maintain at least one metre of separation when overtaking and the cycle lobby will say. "two surely" tell them it also applies to cyclists overtaking and they will roar with laughter.

Although many seem to be unaware of the law covering cyclists, they are certainly required to comply with some sections of the Highway code (Rules 59 to 82) where the wording includes the term "Must" or "Must Not"  this includes  stopping at red lights, pedestrian crossings, rounabout and junction stop lines, etc. etc.

[Murflynn]

simples - in the event of a collision or similar incident involving a pedestrian and a cyclist, the faster person/vehicle (i.e. the cyclist) is to blame by default and may be liable to prosecution for careless or dangerous riding (mirroring what currently happens between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian), unless he can provide evidence that the pedestrian deliberately caused a collision. 

in order to monitor/police such laws, all bikes must carry a licence plate visible from behind, and the registered owner of the bike is responsible for the security of the bike, appropriate insurance, and only allowing others to ride the bike with his permission.

[Dave Payne]

Copied from another site...

 

Causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving is an offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It was created by section 35 of the Offences Against the Persons Act which dates from 1861.

It reads: "Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."

The law is used to convict persons who cause bodily harm with a vehicle that is not motorised, like a bicycle, horse-drawn carriage or in a car that is not being driven on a public road.

 

[Sir Nibble]

53 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

Although many seem to be unaware of the law covering cyclists, they are certainly required to comply with some sections of the Highway code (Rules 59 to 82) where the wording includes the term "Must" or "Must Not"  this includes  stopping at red lights, pedestrian crossings, rounabout and junction stop lines, etc. etc.

A hobby horse of mine and mostly semantics but whilst cyclists are "required" by statute to comply they are equally "allowed" to disregard statute by custom and practice and incredible enforcement. Note: Incredible does not in this case carry the modern meaning of "very surprising" but is used in a novel manner to mean "lacking credibility".

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Sir Nibble said:

Whatever laws may be introduced, they will,like the rest of the highway code simply not apply to cyclists. Bring in a rule that you must maintain at least one metre of separation when overtaking and the cycle lobby will say. "two surely" tell them it also applies to cyclists overtaking and they will roar with laughter.

The laws already exist, and have been used this year to prosecute a cyclist - but there has to be the 'will' to use it.

THE case where a cyclist has been found guilty of causing bodily harm by 'wanton or furious driving' yesterday, has raised further questions about pedestrian safety and the responsibility of cyclists in public places, writes Keith Gudgin.

Mrs Briggs' family said they plan to campaign for tougher cycling laws to protect pedestrians. He said: "Out of this senseless carnage, I shall try to bring change to the law and change to attitudes. Perhaps in this way I can honour my wife."

Cycling furiously along the towpath

Cyclists need to remember this law whilst they are cycling furiously along the towpath. If they injure a pedestrian by 'wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct' with the result of causing 'any bodily harm to any person whatsoever' could mean they end up in prison for up to two years or having to fork out a hefty fine or both.

As can be seen, they would not need to kill anyone to be prosecuted, any bodily harm to any person whatsoever is sufficient for a prosecution and the law does not state that they have to be on a public road or footpath either so towpaths and private property are also covered.

Provide evidence

We boaters, as towpath users, need to be aware of this law and take measures to provide the police and other authorities with the evidence of cyclists who persist in riding in a wanton or furious manner or racing along the towpaths in order to get them stopped and/or prosecuted. Remember, speed trials are a form of racing and therefore fall within the remit of this law.

Also, I feel CaRT and local councils need to become aware that they could also, by not attempting to prevent furious riding or racing in any form by cyclists, become liable for a failure in their duty of care responsibilities.

CaRT could end up with a fine

If CaRT and local councils continue to upgrade all the towpaths to knowingly allow cyclists to race or ride furiously without including any other restrictions, i.e. speed humps, gates or even just a blanket speed limit to restrict cyclists then I feel that before long they could end up with a very hefty fine and a court order to implement measures of prevention.

Remember, aiding and abetting an offence is treated by the courts in just the same manner as actually committing the offence under British law.

Cyclists only one user of the towpaths

We pedestrians have the law on our side, we must put a stop to irresponsible and ignorant cyclists who insist that they have the right of way over everybody and anybody on any road, path, track or byway. Cyclists need to be made aware that they are only one user of the byways and that they are required to give way to others. On towpaths, the rules actually state that cyclists should give way to pedestrians.

Why do cyclists assume that all pedestrians are going to jump out of their way. Why should pedestrians have to step off the path into the mud and puddles just to let a speeding cyclist go past without even slowing down. What happens if the pedestrian is deaf and cannot hear the cyclist approaching from behind?

Not even need come in contact

This law, as it is, does not even need the cyclist to come in contact with the pedestrian for an offence to be committed as it states '...do or cause to be done any bodily harm...'.

It appears from this that a cyclist could be liable if, by their action, they just make a pedestrian fall over and injure themselves. Therefore any action by a cyclist that causes bodily harm in any way could constitute an offence under this law.

Not above the law

Cyclist need to be shown that they are not above the law and that other people, other byway users, also have rights and even have a right of way over cyclists in many cases.

One thing that needs urgent attention is the identification of cyclists to prevent them from just getting up and riding off after an accident without leaving any trace of who they are. Registration of all adult cyclists and a registration plate fixed to their bike is an urgent and long overdue legal need.

The law under which the cyclist was charged...

 'Offences Against the Person Act 1861'. This law is the closest to dangerous driving a cyclist can be charged with and states

35} Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving.
Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.

[mross]

16 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

in the event of a collision or similar incident involving a pedestrian and a cyclist, the faster person/vehicle (i.e. the cyclist) is to blame by default and may be liable to prosecution for careless or dangerous riding

 

No.  If a pedestrian steps into the road without looking, not on a crossing, and is in collision with a cyclist, the pedestrian is at fault UNLESS the cyclist had time to react.

Similarly, if a cyclist pulls out of a side road, at the last moment, in front of a car being driven responsibly, where the driver cannot possibly avoid a collision, then the cyclist is at fault.

Even more so if the collision happens at night and the cyclist has no lights.

All road users must accept some responsibility for their own safety and must look out for others too.

[Midnight]

10 minutes ago, mross said:

No.  If a pedestrian steps into the road without looking, not on a crossing, and is in collision with a cyclist, the pedestrian is at fault UNLESS the cyclist had time to react.

Similarly, if a cyclist pulls out of a side road, at the last moment, in front of a car being driven responsibly, where the driver cannot possibly avoid a collision, then the cyclist is at fault.

Even more so if the collision happens at night and the cyclist has no lights.

All road users must accept some responsibility for their own safety and must look out for others too.

what about towpath users?

 

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, Sir Nibble said:

Whatever laws may be introduced, they will,like the rest of the highway code simply not apply to cyclists. Bring in a rule that you must maintain at least one metre of separation when overtaking and the cycle lobby will say. "two surely" tell them it also applies to cyclists overtaking and they will roar with laughter.

Exactly... I get really annoyed that I "have" to slow down behind a cyclist until I can pass safely, and said safely seems to be with a gap of about 6 ft... yet cyclists overtake me and undertake me with gay abandon with gaps of only inches. I hooted my horn at one who undertook me at a traffic light junction where cars in front were turning left, and he followed me with his hand raised giving the "V's" and other gesticulations. I wont be bothering again as I'm sure it wound me up more than him.

[mross]

3 minutes ago, Midnight said:

what about towpath users?

Good point.  The rules should apply to all highways and public spaces, but I suspect this might prove difficult to legislate (for).  Maybe it could cover highways, byways, bridle paths, rights of way, cycle tracks............................. the list is endless.

[KevMc]

19 minutes ago, mross said:

No.  If a pedestrian steps into the road without looking, not on a crossing, and is in collision with a cyclist, the pedestrian is at fault UNLESS the cyclist had time to react.

Similarly, if a cyclist pulls out of a side road, at the last moment, in front of a car being driven responsibly, where the driver cannot possibly avoid a collision, then the cyclist is at fault.

Even more so if the collision happens at night and the cyclist has no lights.

All road users must accept some responsibility for their own safety and must look out for others too.

The problem is proving who was in the right at the time.. I've just bought a dash cam for the car so that in such a case I could show who was at fault (hopefully it will never be called on though)

[Midnight]

10 minutes ago, mross said:

Good point.  The rules should apply to all highways and public spaces, but I suspect this might prove difficult to legislate (for).  Maybe it could cover highways, byways, bridle paths, rights of way, cycle tracks............................. the list is endless.

Cyclists on towpaths are generally a danger not because of their speed but the simple fact the towpath in many places is too narrow. How many times have you stepped off your boat with the centre rope and whilst trying to bring 15+ tons into the side some two-wheeled plonker screams at you to get out of the way or worse just brushes past - it's happened to me 4 times in the past 3 years.

I may be wrong, others on here will correct me if I am, but isn't there some rule, possibly Sustrans rule, that says shared space should be minimum 12ft wide? How many towpaths are?

Observing the speed of most cyclists between Leeds and Bingley last year I would think a serious accident is inevitable. In such an event how much responsibility will CaRT bare if such a rule has been ignored?

Edited September 21, 2017 by Midnight

[mross]

Just be aware that, in the event of an 'incident', the police could impound your dashcam and use its contents as evidence against you.

[WotEver]

23 minutes ago, Midnight said:

what about towpath users?

The ‘Furious Driving’ law doesn’t specify any location. 

[mross]

Cyclists on footpaths have to 'give way' to walkers.  CaRT says on its website

Children may not understand what to do if a cyclist rings their bell; joggers and cyclists need to be aware that other people may not hear or see them coming, or it simply may not be possible to get out of the way. This is why towpaths have a pedestrian priority and it is especially important for those moving quickly (cyclists and joggers) to slow down and take care going under bridges or in other places where the sight line maybe poor.

[KevMc]

18 minutes ago, mross said:

Just be aware that, in the event of an 'incident', the police could impound your dashcam and use its contents as evidence against you.

Which is why I have started using the speed limiter on the car so that I know I'm not exceeding the speed limit

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

Although many seem to be unaware of the law covering cyclists, they are certainly required to comply with some sections of the Highway code (Rules 59 to 82) where the wording includes the term "Must" or "Must Not"  this includes  stopping at red lights, pedestrian crossings, rounabout and junction stop lines, etc. etc.

The Highway Code is not itself law. Some of it is indeed restating specific requirements of the law, some of it is just good practice. That said, a court will take a dim view of anyone who has deliberately flouted its guidance.