Cycling law review

[cuthound]

Another responsible cyclist? 

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/watch-bmx-rider-dodges-leisure-13647692

 

They really don't do themselves any favours do they? 

Edited September 21, 2017 by cuthound

[Robbo]

6 minutes ago, rasputin said:

lots of peanuts

Average about £6 per 1kg bag (quick google), so not really a lot either.

[mrsmelly]

6 minutes ago, rasputin said:

lots of peanuts

I run a small business in a safe environment but it still costs me 600 quid a year to insure against some numty tripping up on my property and injuring themselves. I also have to pay 200 quid a year just to be able to play a radio!! cycle insurance is peanuts and hopefuly will in time become compulsory as it seems we do need new cycle legislation as I am quite surprised that it appears many cyclists don't have any and furthermore don't give a sheeite about other people.

[Graham Davis]

5 hours ago, Murflynn said:

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.

How would that apply to any cycle ridden by a child?

[rusty69]

1 minute ago, Graham Davis said:

How would that apply to any cycle ridden by a child?

Registered in the parents name? 

[Jerra]

2 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

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.

The conservatives are forming a government with in the region of 57.6% of the population voting against them.  That is a gap of 15.2% a much larger difference then the "decisive" referendum vote.

[smileypete]

Should be a limit of 5mph when passing pedestrians, and near walking pace where the path is narrow.

That way, if you hit a pedestrian while on a bike, it's your fault!

I always slow to jogging pace when passing pedestrians, and say 'excuse me' politely when necessary, never been a problem...

Edited September 21, 2017 by smileypete

[mrsmelly]

15 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The conservatives are forming a government with in the region of 57.6% of the population voting against them.  That is a gap of 15.2% a much larger difference then the "decisive" referendum vote.

This is as bad as the other thread lol. The Conservatives are in number ten then because they got the least votes out of any party?

[Jerra]

53 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

This is as bad as the other thread lol. The Conservatives are in number ten then because they got the least votes out of any party?

You are very conveniently ignoring your own attitude to a 4% margin in favour in the referendum.  However we aren't discussing why they are in number 10 we are discussing how disliked they are and at 15.2% more not liking them than like them enough to vote for them I would suggest they are fairly heavily disliked.  Nearly 2:1 against them in fact.

[Richard10002]

21 minutes ago, Jerra said:

You are very conveniently ignoring your own attitude to a 4% margin in favour in the referendum.  However we aren't discussing why they are in number 10 we are discussing how disliked they are and at 15.2% more not liking them than like them enough to vote for them I would suggest they are fairly heavily disliked.  Nearly 2:1 against them in fact.

Isn't that usually the case with any party that forms a government? They never, (?), have a majority in terms of votes, (i.e. more than 50%), so are always not wanted by more of the electorate than wants them.

By that logic, governments are always "fairly heavily disliked"

[rasputin]

3 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

I run a small business in a safe environment but it still costs me 600 quid a year to insure against some numty tripping up on my property and injuring themselves. I also have to pay 200 quid a year just to be able to play a radio!! cycle insurance is peanuts and hopefuly will in time become compulsory as it seems we do need new cycle legislation as I am quite surprised that it appears many cyclists don't have any and furthermore don't give a sheeite about other people.

Bully for you, I am a carer for my wife who is in a wheelchair with multiple sclerosis, every penny counts in order to give us some quality of life, yes she does go cycling with me on a trailer pulled by myself.

 

[Murflynn]

8 hours 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.

 

not quite what I said, but you already know that.

A pedestrian carelessly stepping out into the road is clearly at fault, in which case the default position does not apply.

[Murflynn]

2 hours ago, smileypete said:

Should be a limit of 5mph when passing pedestrians, and near walking pace where the path is narrow.

That way, if you hit a pedestrian while on a bike, it's your fault!

I always slow to jogging pace when passing pedestrians, and say 'excuse me' politely when necessary, never been a problem...

the voice of reason.  

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, Richard10002 said:

Isn't that usually the case with any party that forms a government? They never, (?), have a majority in terms of votes, (i.e. more than 50%), so are always not wanted by more of the electorate than wants them.

By that logic, governments are always "fairly heavily disliked"

If you listen to the grumbles mid term you might think this is the case, which it very often in my experience it very often is the case.

[David Schweizer]

3 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

This is as bad as the other thread lol. The Conservatives are in number ten then because they got the least votes out of any party?

 Not quite, but Close - 2017 General Election proportion of all votes cast :-

Conservative - 42.4%.   Labour - 40.0%.   Lib Dem - 7.4%.  Others - 10.2%.

[thebfg]

14 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

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.

there was sort of a test case around here last year. a motorists ran down and killed a cyclist. the sun blinded the driver and he dident slow down or see the cyclist.

 

the courts said that as it was only advisory to slow down when blinded by the sun he had committed no offence.

[Ssscrudddy]

9 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

 Not quite, but Close - 2017 General Election proportion of all votes cast :-

Conservative - 42.4%.   Labour - 40.0%.   Lib Dem - 7.4%.  Others - 10.2%.

This is the problem. I hate the tories, but if they got 42% of the vote then they should get 42% of the say in running things, & at the same time labour should get 40% of the say in running things. Instead what we have is the tories with 100% say in the running of things with no one else get any say at all, & this is plain wrong. 1st past the post doesnt work.

[Murflynn]

14 minutes ago, Ssscrudddy said:

This is the problem. I hate the tories, but if they got 42% of the vote then they should get 42% of the say in running things, & at the same time labour should get 40% of the say in running things. Instead what we have is the tories with 100% say in the running of things with no one else get any say at all, & this is plain wrong. 1st past the post doesnt work.

perhaps you do not understand the UK parliamentary system?  Her Majesty's Opposition and the House of Lords do indeed 'get a say'.

First past the post has been working for centuries.

 

 

[Ssscrudddy]

Conservative MPs 316 48% of MPs with 42% of the vote.
Labour MPs 262 40% of MPs with 40% of the vote.

So the labour has the correct share of MPs vs the vote, yet the tories should only have 273 MPs vs the vote, yet they have an extra 43 MPs because of first pass the post.

That does not realistically reflect the 2% difference. First past the post does not represent the will of the people

[mrsmelly]

10 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

 Not quite, but Close - 2017 General Election proportion of all votes cast :-

Conservative - 42.4%.   Labour - 40.0%.   Lib Dem - 7.4%.  Others - 10.2%.

Oh so getting the most votes as depicted by your post in your opinion means that they actualy nearly got the least?

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

First past the post has been working for centuries.

 

or:

First past the post "hasn't" been working for centuries?

 

[David Schweizer]

14 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

Isn't that usually the case with any party that forms a government? They never, (?), have a majority in terms of votes, (i.e. more than 50%), so are always not wanted by more of the electorate than wants them.

By that logic, governments are always "fairly heavily disliked"

Yes, that is correct. No Government has secured more than 50% of the vote since 1945, although the Tories came very close twice in the 1950's. Since then the proportion has varied but generally much lower. However some of the reduced proportion may be due to there being more patries contesting the election and taking some votes from the main parties.

Edited September 22, 2017 by David Schweizer

[David Schweizer]

2 hours ago, Ssscrudddy said:

This is the problem. I hate the tories, but if they got 42% of the vote then they should get 42% of the say in running things, & at the same time labour should get 40% of the say in running things. Instead what we have is the tories with 100% say in the running of things with no one else get any say at all, & this is plain wrong. 1st past the post doesnt work.

You are overlooking the disproportionate involvement of the 6 Democratic Unionist MP's

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Oh so getting the most votes as depicted by your post in your opinion means that they actualy nearly got the least?

No that isn't what I meant, but re-reading you post I can see how my reply could be interpreted in that way. What I was trying to indicate  was that they only secured 2.4% more of the popular vote than the Labour party.

[Machpoint005]

18 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

If Labour were more popular they would be in power

No, they are more popular now than they were in early June. The opinion poll I quoted was from July and showed an eight-point lead for Labour. 

In any case I was talking about Tory unpopularity, which isn't the same thing - ask the SNP, PC and Lib Dem supporters!

2 hours ago, Murflynn said:

First past the post has been working for centuries.

...and not very well, and getting worse all the time.

1 hour ago, Ssscrudddy said:

Conservative MPs 316 48% of MPs with 42% of the vote.
Labour MPs 262 40% of MPs with 40% of the vote.

So the labour has the correct share of MPs vs the vote, yet the tories should only have 273 MPs vs the vote, yet they have an extra 43 MPs because of first pass the post.

That does not realistically reflect the 2% difference. First past the post does not represent the will of the people

Indeed.

[Señor Chris]

23 hours ago, cuthound said:

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

Fortunately, that will never happen - and for good reasons. Apart from being totally unenforceable (police can barely manage as it is), discouraging people from cycling would be a huge own-goal from a public health viewpoint and would cost the taxpayer a fortune. The health benefits from regular exercise are so great it has been suggested that getting more people cycling could be the saviour of the NHS and some reckon inactive lifestyles account for as many early deaths as tobacco.

And using 'other road users' as a benchmark isn't very sensible either as despite being registered and insured they still manage to kill ~500 pedestrians a year although for some reason, these deaths are rarely reported in the media.