Jump to content

Cycling law review


Midnight

Featured Posts

47 minutes ago, David Mack said:

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.

It's not that the courts take a dim view, it's illegal to flout parts of the code.  It's not just "guidance" - parts are mandatory.

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence"

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The situation is particularly bad on the Regents Canal and I have been involved in numerous near misses.

CRT have a duty of care towards towpath users,but their notices to cyclists are rather too subtle IMHO ,such as "Be More Tortoise Less Hare".I expect this topic has already been aired on the forum.

Is it time for CRT to formally introduce a speed limit (5MPH ? ), put up notices to that affect with some wording advising "ring your bell to warn towpath users of your approach " ?

I full accept that notices alone wont change the attitude of the worst offenders,but my guess is that many cyclists will be more compliant if the message from CRT was a lot firmer. 

Edited by Quaffer
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

I would say. they could only use footage of the current journey. they may have issues with proving who the driver is otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, thebfg said:

I would say. they could only use footage of the current journey. they may have issues with proving who the driver is otherwise.

Nah, they can prove who is driving from the swear words accompanying each near miss or incident :P

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any review of cycling rules/laws is a waste of time because ultimately the police will not police it.

 

What is required is the police to actually use the powers they have and take action against cyclist that break the law.

 

asking for cyclist to have registrations and such like is a waste of money and resources and will ultimately go against government policy by pitting people off cycling.

 

I would also hope, in the event of a review , that they will actually decide to put in proper cycling infrastructure and srop putting in mixes use paths.

 

Edited by thebfg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Quaffer said:

The situation is particularly bad on the Regents Canal and I have been involved in numerous near misses.

CRT have a duty of care towards towpath users,but their notices to cyclists are rather too subtle IMHO ,such as "Be More Tortoise Less Hare".I expect this topic has already been aired on the forum.

Is it time for CRT to formally introduce a speed limit (5MPH ? ), put up notices to that affect with some wording advising "ring your bell to warn towpath users of your approach " ?

I full accept that notices alone wont change the attitude of the worst offenders,but my guess is that many cyclists will be more compliant if the message from CRT was a lot firmer. 

"Lycra Mafia" type cyclists routinely ignore red lights and dodge round pedestrians on Zebra crossings so, as you say, semi humorous signs from CaRT are an absolute waste of space. Sadly I think we need lots of more official and formal signs informing "Pedestrian Priority on All Towpaths" and "Dismount at All Bridges" etc etc so that at least in the event of accidents and conflicts cyclists can't pretend "I though it was my right of way on the cycletrack" etc etc.

Ive been quite tempted to get myself a nice folding mountain bike as I do miss cycling, but I think I really don't want to be cycling on the towpaths because cyclists have got themselves such a bad reputation and I don't want to be lumped in with that.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post on a cyclists' website made me smile.  I assume it's ironic.  http://road.cc/content/news/72569-londons-cycle-commuter-boom-causes-problems-regents-canal-towpath

MRCONSIDERATE [4 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes 

I just recently started to use this cycle route for commuting in the Victoria Park and Bethnal Green area along with hundreds of other cyclists during the rush hour periods and I'm alarmed at the inconsiderate pedestrians that ignore our bells as we approach at speed. They just don't seem to realize the danger they put themselves and us in. One couple of silly old blokes shouted 'I thought you were supposed to give way to pedestrians!' How ridiculous - they obviously don't appreciate that this canal towpath is now an important commuter route for we cyclists.

It strikes me that for they safety of all of us, cyclists and pedestrians, that pedestrians should not be allowed to use the towpath during the rush hour periods. When I travel home it's fun to time myself to try and beat my previous record and I can't do this if I'm unable to swerve round a walker and am forced to slow down. I have nearly hit some of the walking dawdlers when they don't respond to my bell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Machpoint005 said:

I think it's amazingly naive to think that just by making something illegal it will no longer happen. As someone has already said, it's a populist distraction by a deeply unpopular government.

I have to ask that if its a " Deeply unpopular " government why in the very recent general election called by the pm  being so deeply unpopular why didn't some other party, say for instance the Labour party have a sweeping victory and land with a massive majority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple ain't it. Look before you step onto a right of way perpendicular to the flow of users. Bikes are a bloody glorious thing and should be used more. Obviously they should be ridden safely, but as a balance against the risks (as per everything else) i.e. a flat 5 mph limit as someone suggest is ridiculous. 

You shouldn't be getting annoyed about getting stuck behind one, or blaring your horn due to annoyance. The laws already exist, they just need to be enforced.

There are pillocks in all walks of life, wearing lyrca and riding a bike doesn't automatically make you one. I don't personally think there's a greater ratio of pillocks on bikes as there is in cars / vans. Personally on the roads I take more risks on my bike than most would, but that's because I'm the one at greater risk on the whole (to state the obvious; I'm not taking about increasing risk to pedestrians). I don't take the same risks in my van as that weighs two tonnes and could kill several people.

I don't think there's really cause for any new laws. Other than the introduction of being able to go left on a red light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

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.

I realise that. However, as fartas I am aware, where the Highway code "rules" state that cycilsts "Must" or "Must Not" the rule is based upon legislation. Where it uses the term "Should" it is advisoory.

Edited by David Schweizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Simple ain't it. Look before you step onto a right of way perpendicular to the flow of users. Bikes are a bloody glorious thing and should be used more. Obviously they should be ridden safely, but as a balance against the risks (as per everything else) i.e. a flat 5 mph limit as someone suggest is ridiculous. 

You shouldn't be getting annoyed about getting stuck behind one, or blaring your horn due to annoyance. The laws already exist, they just need to be enforced.

There are pillocks in all walks of life, wearing lyrca and riding a bike doesn't automatically make you one. I don't personally think there's a greater ratio of pillocks on bikes as there is in cars / vans. Personally on the roads I take more risks on my bike than most would, but that's because I'm the one at greater risk on the whole (to state the obvious; I'm not taking about increasing risk to pedestrians). I don't take the same risks in my van as that weighs two tonnes and could kill several people.

I don't think there's really cause for any new laws. Other than the introduction of being able to go left on a red light.

Personaly I hate bikes, always have done I don't however hate those who use them, its more pity than anything else. Problems are of course that they are unregistered, unlicensed, uninsured apart from a few sensible users and of course there is no MOT so pillocks actualy use them with faulty or indeed missing brakes on occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I have to ask that if its a " Deeply unpopular " government why in the very recent general election called by the pm  being so deeply unpopular why didn't some other party, say for instance the Labour party have a sweeping victory and land with a massive majority?

You don't live around here, do you?

Our regional mayor was elected with a huge majority (63% of those voting, voted for Andy Burnham). That hints at the depth of anti-Tory feeling. I don't argue with the fact that the like/dislike is quite polarised.

Nationally, on 6 July 2017 (the most recent one I could find) the YouGov poll for The Times put the Tories on 38% and Labour on 46%. As I said, deeply unpopular. Let's not argue about whether the Tories won the last election - they did not win an overall majority, and have had to buy Irish votes (probably illegally) to stay in power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A pity that people use bikes!? As we slowly drive this rock into a uninhabitable waste land any "emission free" form of transport should be encourage with all our hearts!

Insurance is a tricky one. If you have to insure horses then I'd agree. But insurance on the tow path is a bit much, you may as well insist on insurance for joggers then too.

Yes obviously broken / dangerous vehicles / animals shouldn't be used

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

You don't live around here, do you?

Our regional mayor was elected with a huge majority (63% of those voting, voted for Andy Burnham). That hints at the depth of anti-Tory feeling. I don't argue with the fact that the like/dislike is quite polarised.

Nationally, on 6 July 2017 (the most recent one I could find) the YouGov poll for The Times put the Tories on 38% and Labour on 46%. As I said, deeply unpopular. Let's not argue about whether the Tories won the last election - they did not win an overall majority, and have had to buy Irish votes (probably illegally) to stay in power. 

If Labour were more popular they would be in power or would have been forming government in cohoots with another party but facts are conservatives are still there even after a disasterous campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sirweste said:

A pity that people use bikes!? As we slowly drive this rock into a uninhabitable waste land any "emission free" form of transport should be encourage with all our hearts!

Insurance is a tricky one. If you have to insure horses then I'd agree. But insurance on the tow path is a bit much, you may as well insist on insurance for joggers then too.

Yes obviously broken / dangerous vehicles / animals shouldn't be used

I think sense comes into insurance. There is no compulsory dog insurance but for a very few quid a year mine is insured so if for instance it bites someone they have a point of claim and if it runs into the road and is the cause of an accident then again insurance is in place. Why on Earth should other vehicle users have insurance when a cycle which is classifies as a vehicle doesn't have it? I reckon without googling cycle insurance will be peanuts?  Joggers are just people and insuring people would be stupid but insuring a steel vehicle capable of 30 plus mph is surely just common sense though I know that common sense aint very common.

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine aren't insured, it's too damned expensive to justify.

I'm sure there's stats about joggers causing injury. The bloke on london bridge for example. But my point was that if you're insuring off road bikes which could cause injury (well the 10st bag of water would) then you should also be insuring out else tat could cause injury. It's overly risk adverse in my opinion. 

 

Edited by sirweste
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Mine aren't insured, it's too damned expensive to justify.

I'm sure there's stats about joggers causing injury. The bloke on london bridge for example. But my point was that if you're insuring off road bikes which could cause injury (well the 10st bag of water would) then you should also be insuring out else tat could cause injury. It's overly risk adverse in my opinion. 

 

If you injure someone in such a way that they cannot work again, and don't have insurance, the injured party can and will see you for their loss of earnings.

Worst case could be £millions. 

3rd party cycle insurance is cheap.

https://www.pedalsure.com/?rmsrc=1&_$ja=tsid:68420|cid:269325309|agid:19305091989|tid:kwd-19312921213|crid:139611521182|nw:g|rnd:2344738950133957089|dvc:t|adp:1t3&gclid=CjwKCAjwxo3OBRBpEiwAS7X62Yk4-n8BVWXn0NrieVbWfMhA8aUNqLZGGH8Kzan-B10NqGYNa7j4BxoCDZsQAvD_BwE

http://www.money.co.uk/bicycle-insurance/bicycle-liability-insurance.htm

Edited by cuthound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Mine aren't insured, it's too damned expensive to justify.

I'm sure there's stats about joggers causing injury. The bloke on london bridge for example. But my point was that if you're insuring off road bikes which could cause injury (well the 10st bag of water would) then you should also be insuring out else tat could cause injury. It's overly risk adverse in my opinion. 

 

Its peanuts I have just googled, about 3 quid a week including public liability cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Yep, but the same would be true if I went running, or playing golf, or football. I'm not interested in insurance that I don't have to have. 

the insurance I was referring to was for the value of me bike, obviously my wires were crossed.

Let me get this right then you are saying that insuring your bike is more important than insuring someone you may run into and possibly give a life changing injury or death and because you don't have to have it its tough luck on anyone you may run into?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.