Cycling law review

[Sir Nibble]

Well we had a referendum on the issue which puts the lid on proportional representation. Back to cycling, who amongst us has never been a cyclist? Cycles are a good means of transport so long as they are used within reasonable limits. By that I mean they aren't suitable for a fifty mile daily commute. The problem arises due to the attitude of moral superiority held by some which leads them to treat others around them with disdain. A few weeks ago I was driving home, good conditions, 40 limit, not too much traffic when I came up behind a cyclist riding right in the middle of the carriageway half way between kerb and white line. What's that about? He knew I was there and could have moved over at any time but didn't. He must have realised I would pass him and as the opportunity presented I did, leaving him about two feet of clearance, a quick glance at the mirror showed him gesticulating wildly and I think that from his point of view everything had gone according to plan in that he had a car to complain about. I believe the bloke was being deliberately obstructive as part of a one man war on cars and hoping to provoke a pass close enough to complain about. It seems that where one of these moral heroes once puts a tyre belongs to them and bigger road users should show them deference whilst smaller more vulnerable pedestrians should. "get out of the fu*king way".

[Señor Chris]

4 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

the attitude of moral superiority held by some which leads them to treat others around them with disdain.

Quite common amongst boaters, according to a recent thread on here.

[Señor Chris]

On 21/09/2017 at 11:14, dmr said:

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

It's not an enquiry - it's a 'review' in response to a hysterical media outcry so the government can be seen to be doing 'something'. Common sense will soon prevail.

I'd also be very wary of trying to introduce new laws onto the canals - could be the thin end of the wedge. If CRT are to be given more powers to restrict activities on the canals, you can be sure that boaters will feel the heat at some point as well.

[dmr]

There is a some truth and wisdom in what you say, but boaters and fisherman are already subject to many rules whilst cyclists, the fastest and fastest growing section of canal users, are subject to no rules at all and can travel as fast as they wish, in large groups, and pass as close to pedestrians as they wish. Boaters and fishermen generally agree (often begrudgingly) to share the canals whist some cyclists believe they have right of way. Reluctantly I feel this needs to be controlled.

The media is always hysterical, thats what they do, but there is a growing problem that does need to be addressed.

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

[cuthound]

1 hour ago, Señor Chris said:

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.

 

They manage it with cars so it isn't impossible, all done through databases operated bythe DVLA and the motor insurance industry. I beleive that it will be implemented eventually,  if only as a source of addition revenue for the government.

Registration will enable people accidentally injured in accidents involving cycles to identify the owner, so in that respect the public will be policing it.

The health benefits will remain, whether cycles are registered and insured or not.

Registration and insurance will not prevent death or injury, but will make identifying the miscreant and obtaining compensation more likely

Edited September 22, 2017 by cuthound
Spillung

[mross]

3 hours ago, Ssscrudddy said:

First past the post does not represent the will of the people

It's the will of the people that got us into this mess!  (Brexit)

Too many fools voted, with no idea what they were doing.  The majority of the UK now oppose Brexit.

[mross]

1 hour ago, Sir Nibble said:

leaving him about two feet of clearance

Lucky the police didn't see you, they would have nicked you.  I believe we have to give cyclists about six feet.  But I agree that some cyclists are a PITA.  I think this position is a policy of some cycle clubs - defensive riding or something.  I know cyclists want to avoid drain covers etc so they ride a couple of feet from the kerb.

[Sir Nibble]

4 minutes ago, mross said:

Lucky the police didn't see you, they would have nicked you.  I believe we have to give cyclists about six feet.  But I agree that some cyclists are a PITA.  I think this position is a policy of some cycle clubs - defensive riding or something.  I know cyclists want to avoid drain covers etc so they ride a couple of feet from the kerb.

I actually left him about 3 1/2 metres but he chose to use 3 of them to try and block overtaking.

[mross]

15 hours ago, Murflynn said:

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.

You actually 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. "

If a pedestrian steps out, he is not deliberately causing a collision!  Why should the onus be on the poor motorist to prove that?  It would come down to witnesses and skid marks (on the road, not the underwear).

[mross]

The British Cycling organisation is promoting this as the correct road positioning for cyclists!

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/cycletraining/article/ct20110110-cycletraining-Bitesize-Bikeability--Part-4--On-Road-Positioning-0

But elsewhere on the same website, it has the more sensible advice

"There are two main positions to use when you are riding, the default position about a third of the way into the lane and taking control of the lane.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowledge/skills/commuting-leisure/article/izn20170317-Commuting---Leisure-Correct-Road-Positioning---Commute-Smart-0

Edited September 22, 2017 by mross

[Sir Nibble]

4 minutes ago, mross said:

You actually 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. "

If a pedestrian steps out, he is not deliberately causing a collision!  Why should the onus be on the poor motorist to prove that?  It would come down to witnesses and skid marks (on the road, not the underwear).

On the subject of blame. Going back to my earlier example. You say a police officer would take exception to what may or may not have been too close a pass. I would like to think a copper would have pulled the cyclist, invited him to explain why he did not constitute a deliberate obstruction, booked him as such and explained that he was making himself unnecessarily vulnerable. But there is a presumption isn't there that cyclist good, saving the planet, everything they do is ok because it's them doing it.

I must stress that this is a small minority I am talking about but being a dick with a bike is still being a dick.

[Midnight]

1 hour ago, Señor Chris said:

It's not an enquiry - it's a 'review' in response to a hysterical media outcry so the government can be seen to be doing 'something'. Common sense will soon prevail.

I'd also be very wary of trying to introduce new laws onto the canals - could be the thin end of the wedge. If CRT are to be given more powers to restrict activities on the canals, you can be sure that boaters will feel the heat at some point as well.

Unfortunately many cyclists don't seem to have much common sense.

[Sir Nibble]

9 minutes ago, mross said:

The British Cycling organisation is promoting this as the correct road positioning for cyclists!

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/cycletraining/article/ct20110110-cycletraining-Bitesize-Bikeability--Part-4--On-Road-Positioning-0

But elsewhere on the same website, it has the more sensible advice

"There are two main positions to use when you are riding, the default position about a third of the way into the lane and taking control of the lane.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowledge/skills/commuting-leisure/article/izn20170317-Commuting---Leisure-Correct-Road-Positioning---Commute-Smart-0

The British cycling organisation is a dick.

[mrsmelly]

As for being good for the health!! A and E departements are full of athletes/sports people and cyclists are a fair number of road casualties each year.

[Señor Chris]

Normally, I cycle ~1m out from the kerb - roughly the line taken by a car's near side wheels. Occasionally, I move to the middle and block anyone from overtaking too close, for example at pinch points. My safety is more important than a few seconds of someone's time.

 

[David Schweizer]

16 minutes ago, mross said:

The British Cycling organisation is promoting this as the correct road positioning for cyclists!

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/cycletraining/article/ct20110110-cycletraining-Bitesize-Bikeability--Part-4--On-Road-Positioning-0

But elsewhere on the same website, it has the more sensible advice

"There are two main positions to use when you are riding, the default position about a third of the way into the lane and taking control of the lane.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowledge/skills/commuting-leisure/article/izn20170317-Commuting---Leisure-Correct-Road-Positioning---Commute-Smart-0

That is the positioning now recommended for Motor Cycles, but they travel at the same spreed as the other motorised traffic (or faster!) Some cyclists seem to think it is ok to wobble about in the centre of the road at 5mph, even when there is a 2 metre tarmac cycle lane which was created by reducuing the width of the road by a metre!!

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

Normally, I cycle ~1m out from the kerb - roughly the line taken by a car's near side wheels. Occasionally, I move to the middle and block anyone from overtaking too close, for example at pinch points. My safety is more important than a few seconds of someone's time.

 

I too am very safety conscious and that's the main reason I will never get on a push bike, no way Jose.

[bizzard]

Vehicles like buses, huge great brutish SUV's, stupidly wide luxury cars Like Audi A6's , in fact all cars are getting wider and wider, ridiculousely wide, with big wide threatening tyres and wheels half stickin out, all lumbering around with headlights blazing in broad sunny day light whilst the country lanes, most B roads and many A road and single cabbage-ways don't-can't get any wider, ridiculous and absurd.   Bad for both cyclists and pedestrians alike. Especially the pedestrian who wander about willy-nilly glued to their mobile phone-tablet thingy.

[Señor Chris]

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

I too am very safety conscious and that's the main reason I will never get on a push bike, no way Jose.

For many people, NOT cycling is more dangerous than cycling, due to increased health risks.

 

[mrsmelly]

2 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

For many people, NOT cycling is more dangerous than cycling, due to increased health risks.

 

Being hit by a bus isn't very healthy. I have just googled how many serious cyclists injuries there are in the uk each year

[Richard10002]

44 minutes ago, mross said:

Lucky the police didn't see you, they would have nicked you.  I believe we have to give cyclists about six feet.  But I agree that some cyclists are a PITA.  I think this position is a policy of some cycle clubs - defensive riding or something.  I know cyclists want to avoid drain covers etc so they ride a couple of feet from the kerb.

I'm genuinely wondering under which law the police would have nicked him, and which law says that we have to give cyclists about 6 feet? Is there a similar law which says that overtaking and undertaking cyclists have to give cars etc. about 6 feet, or does it say that they only have to give 6 inches?

[rusty69]

17 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

Normally, I cycle ~1m out from the kerb - roughly the line taken by a car's near side wheels. Occasionally, I move to the middle and block anyone from overtaking too close, for example at pinch points. My safety is more important than a few seconds of someone's time.

 

Same here 

[mross]

13 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I'm genuinely wondering under which law the police would have nicked him, and which law says that we have to give cyclists about 6 feet?

It's in the Highway Code.  But prosecution would be under laws concerning inconsiderate or dangerous driving.  Durham police says 1.5m is the minimum safe clearance.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/16/west-midlands-police-release-shocking-cycling-near-miss-footage/

Edited September 22, 2017 by mross

[Señor Chris]

9 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Being hit by a bus isn't very healthy. I have just googled how many serious cyclists injuries there are in the uk each year

Try googling how many deaths result from cardiovascular problems, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers related to physical inactivity.

[mross]

5 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

Try googling how many deaths result from cardiovascular problems, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers related to physical inactivity.

In Australia, they made helmets compulsory for cyclists.  So many stopped using their bicycles that the overall effect was increased deaths, due to the loss of the health benefits from exercise!