Cycling law review

[Señor Chris]

2 minutes ago, mross said:

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!

Don't get me started on helmets!

[bizzard]

I think bus drivers drive half asleep these days, buses too easy to drive, automatic, power steering, power air brakes, air cushion seats, heating making them drowsy, no muscular effort required at all to drive, no exercising of limbs, too comfy altogether, therefore I think they just nod off between stops sometimes. Bring back the old RT style buses, slower, narrower, much harder to drive, pre-selector gearboxes, heavier steering, heavier hoof pressure needed for braking, nice chilly cabs, dodgy windscreen wipers,  conductor stamping on the floor above their head to give him the GO signal, all helped kept them wide awake, on the ball, alert and much much fitter.

[Ssscrudddy]

2 hours ago, Sir Nibble said:

<snip>...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...<snip>

So basically you're of the opinion that cyclists should only ride in the gutter, & should get out of your way when you come along. & 2 feet is too close.

[bizzard]

When the wearing of crash helmets became law for motor bikes around 1974, I remember our Indian friends kicked up a big stink about it because they refused to remove their turbans to don the helmet, for religious reasons. So a new law was passed that allowed them to ride mopeds only, with turbans on. I nearly started a business manufacturing GRP tuban styled look alike crash helmets in all the appropriate different colours of the rainbow to suit their various religious occasions, which are quite numerous.

[Steilsteven]

2 hours ago, Sir Nibble said:

Well we had a referendum on the issue which puts the lid on proportional representation. 

Actually we had a referendum on whether or not to adopt ''Alternative Voting'' which is only one version of PR and not a very good one at that.

 

Keith

[cuthound]

9 minutes ago, bizzard said:

When the wearing of crash helmets became law for motor bikes around 1974, I remember our Indian friends kicked up a big stink about it because they refused to remove their turbans to don the helmet, for religious reasons. So a new law was passed that allowed them to ride mopeds only, with turbans on. I nearly started a business manufacturing GRP tuban styled look alike crash helmets in all the appropriate different colours of the rainbow to suit their various religious occasions, which are quite numerous.

I would have thought the risk of getting the loose end of a turban caught in the rear wheel of the motor bike would be enough to make them wear a helmet 

[bizzard]

1 minute ago, cuthound said:

I would have thought the risk of getting the loose end of a turban caught in the rear wheel of the motor bike would be enough to make them wear a helmet 

Apparently, my old friend Adjmar Singh Mann, whom I taught mechanicing years ago told me it was not only for religious reasons why they wouldn't remove their turbans but also because of the sheer voluminous amounts of hair on their heads, They're evidently are not allowed to ever wash or cut it and its all piled up on their napper like spaghetti held  together with elastic bands and the turban to stop it all breaking loose and flowing everywhere.     This is a true story. I once went to Heathrow airport to meet someone off a plane and was sitting in the arrivals area waiting when along came a group of Indians with huge turbans on. The leader approached be and asked if I could keep an eye on and help if necessary one of their number who'd never ever left India before and couldn't speak our lingo whilst the others went back to immigration for some reason or other. Of course I will, I replied.  The chap they'd left in my charge was huge, handsome and looked like a prince with jewels and broaches all over him.  Anyway he must have got completely fagged out after the flight, jet like I expect, for he suddenly unrolled his highly colourful sleeping mat on the middle of floor in front of us all and lay down to sleep. It was a really restless sleep, dreaming, and what looked like Nightmares although it was only about 1pm so I expect they were Daymares really, tossing and turning, to and fro. Well his jolly old turban came unfastened, all the bands pinged off and his hair began to unravel. I'm not joking there was an enormous amount of it which all got tangled up in his tossing and turning, tangled up all around him too. I didn't like to wake him and spoil his sleep though. When his party returned, they'd brought be a nice cup of tea which was very kind of them, woke up their relation, spent many minutes untangling him and lead him away to fix him all back together again proper like. I don't think they took him to the barbers though.. 

[Machpoint005]

3 hours ago, Sir Nibble said:

Well we had a referendum on the issue which puts the lid on proportional representation.

No, that referendum didn't offer PR, it offered the 'Alternative Vote' system, which didn't even go as far as STV, the system used for (eg) mayoral elections and European Parliamentary elections.

I'm a great believer in PR but I voted against the AV option because (a) it's not PR and (b) it was such a pathetic attempt to mollify the junior partners in the Coalition.

Meanwhile back on topic there is an argument that wearing a cycling helmet can actually be dangerous because the wearer feels less vulnerable, and so does stupid things (even more stupid things, perhaps). You often see a helmet being worn incorrectly (loose chin strap, back to front, etc) which is hazardous in itself. We should be investing in the infrastructure by building cycle lanes with proper barriers. You know, the sort of thing they've had in the Netherlands for more than 50 years... 

24 minutes ago, bizzard said:

... Well his jolly old turban came unfastened, all the bands pinged off and his hair began to unravel. I'm not joking there was an enormous amount of it which all got tangled up in his tossing and turning, tangled up all around him too. I didn't like to wake him and spoil his sleep though. When his party returned, they'd brought be a nice cup of tea which was very kind of them, woke up their relation, spent many minutes untangling him and lead him away to fix him all back together again proper like. I don't think they took him to the barbers though.. 

I have a Sikh mate and that all rings true. The hair (and beard) is one of the five K's of the faith (Kesh).

Not sure about the not washing part, though.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Machpoint005

[bizzard]

10 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

No, that referendum didn't offer PR, it offered the 'Alternative Vote' system, which didn't even go as far as STV, the system used for (eg) mayoral elections and European Parliamentary elections.

I'm a great believer in PR but I voted against the AV option because (a) it's not PR and (b) it was such a pathetic attempt to mollify the junior partners in the Coalition.

Meanwhile back on topic there is an argument that wearing a cycling helmet can actually be dangerous because the wearer feels less vulnerable, and so does stupid things (even more stupid things, perhaps). You often see a helmet being worn incorrectly (loose chin strap, back to front, etc) which is hazardous in itself. We should be investing in the infrastructure by building cycle lanes with proper barriers. You know, the sort of thing they've had in the Netherlands for more than 50 years... 

I have a Sikh mate and that all rings true. The hair (and beard) is one of the five K's of the faith (Kesh).

Not sure about the not washing part, though.

Yes.  Adjmar told me that they rubbed some special oils into it which keeps it fresh, luxurient and smelling nice. He promised to get me some when I began losing my hair but he forgot. I'll might remind him, but I think its too late.

[mross]

Even the North Yorkshire Police seem to be confused.  They claim that, "“Rule 163 of the Highway Code states at least the width of a car should be left between cyclist and vehicle."

https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/drivers-advised-keep-safe-distance-overtaking-cyclists-north-yorkshire-roads/

But it doesn't.  It says, "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car"

I don't think I normally leave quite as much as  1.5m when overtaking cars unless they are parked and I think the driver or passenger might open his door without looking.  On motorways there often isn't 1.5m available, especially in the middle lane in traffic (obviosly I'm not talking about bicycles but lorries, SUVs etc).

This nonsense from the police gets picked up and repeated and soon becomes folklore amaongst the angry two-wheelers.

[Machpoint005]

2 hours ago, mross said:

Even the North Yorkshire Police seem to be confused.  They claim that, "“Rule 163 of the Highway Code states at least the width of a car should be left between cyclist and vehicle."

The problem is all too often that a 1.5m space would indeed be available if motorists were prepared to wait, instead of squeezing past to rush headlong to the next red traffic light! 

[Sir Nibble]

5 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

The problem is all too often that a 1.5m space would indeed be available if motorists were prepared to wait, instead of squeezing past to rush headlong to the next red traffic light!

I am afraid that is the new reality of driving unpoliced roads, for many it has become competitive. I must have passed a dozen cyclists on my drive home today, had no problem finding 1.5 metres for them, more like 2.

[sirweste]

On 9/21/2017 at 18:07, mrsmelly said:

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?

Yes, you've got that right. It's all about statistics, the chances of my bike getting stolen are higher than the chances of what you describe. The same reason a runner doesn't take out third party insurance when they go running in a shared space.

There are many many risks in life, if we didn't each accept them we'd never go out and we wouldn't have evolved. Pedestrians accept these risks when they go near roads or use shared paths. There are many instances where people put third parties are risk with no insurance cover. 

I've suffered a (mildly) life changing injury in the past which could have been argued was due to negligence in maintenance. But I accepted there were risks when I started and as such didn't feel it was right to go after a pay out. 

[sirweste]

On 9/22/2017 at 16:10, mross said:

Even the North Yorkshire Police seem to be confused.  They claim that, "“Rule 163 of the Highway Code states at least the width of a car should be left between cyclist and vehicle."

https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/drivers-advised-keep-safe-distance-overtaking-cyclists-north-yorkshire-roads/

But it doesn't.  It says, "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car"

I don't think I normally leave quite as much as  1.5m when overtaking cars unless they are parked and I think the driver or passenger might open his door without looking.  On motorways there often isn't 1.5m available, especially in the middle lane in traffic (obviosly I'm not talking about bicycles but lorries, SUVs etc).

This nonsense from the police gets picked up and repeated and soon becomes folklore amaongst the angry two-wheelers.

I've always thought this. I definitely leave more gap between me and rider than I would me and car. But a whole lane is excessive. When I'm on my bike I will often wave drivers past if there is what I deem to be a safe gap, I'm not precious about being passed. If there's not a safe gap and I'm riding on a hedged road then drivers will have to wait, part of life, as much as I love to beat that google maps eta time when I'm driving there are many things in this world that will make your plans adjust.

If a driver does, try to, push past me I will (if I can) catch up and make them aware in a very polite way. But politeness and reason argumenting will slow their journey further.

[mrsmelly]

3 hours ago, sirweste said:

Yes, you've got that right. It's all about statistics, the chances of my bike getting stolen are higher than the chances of what you describe. The same reason a runner doesn't take out third party insurance when they go running in a shared space.

There are many many risks in life, if we didn't each accept them we'd never go out and we wouldn't have evolved. Pedestrians accept these risks when they go near roads or use shared paths. There are many instances where people put third parties are risk with no insurance cover. 

I've suffered a (mildly) life changing injury in the past which could have been argued was due to negligence in maintenance. But I accepted there were risks when I started and as such didn't feel it was right to go after a pay out. 

Well I can happily say as the user of a steel vehicle myself I am pleased to pay insurance that gives some measure of payback to someone I may inadvertently hit be it mine or their own fault. Please never quote statistics they can be made to say anything any side of any argument wants them to say. You are quoting a runner in a shared space which is totally different to someone using a steel vehicle which can obviously cause more damage so not realy quoting like with like.

[sirweste]

Don't quote statistics!? The world is run on stats, and while they can be used to deceive they are after all facts!

Anyhow, I didn't use statistics. 

Bizarrely you've used something not like for like in the same paragraph as your criticism of my runner v rider. 3rd party insurance for a 1 - 2 tonne machine is fairly unquestionable, it is not the same as needing insurance for a 0.01 tonne bike! The reason I use runners as an example (though kids on roller blades could also be used) is to show that it is a risk averse thing to do in my opinion. If bikes are to have 3rd party insurance then what's to stop runners (or roller skating kids) to need it too? What about people playing contact sports such as rugby or football, shouldn't each of them have insurance incase they inadvertently hurt someone? etc etc

I don't think that the risks justify insurance. In addition while it's relatively inexpensive insurance now, if it were mandatory it would undoubtedly increase in price very quickly.

I don't know if this has been covered before but we shouldn't be creating obstacles that hamper people getting out of their 2 tonne cars and onto bikes. Previous generations have totally fecked the planet, we desperately need to limit this.

 

[mrsmelly]

4 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Don't quote statistics!? The world is run on stats, and while they can be used to deceive they are after all facts!

Anyhow, I didn't use statistics. 

Bizarrely you've used something not like for like in the same paragraph as your criticism of my runner v rider. 3rd party insurance for a 1 - 2 tonne machine is fairly unquestionable, it is not the same as needing insurance for a 0.01 tonne bike! The reason I use runners as an example (though kids on roller blades could also be used) is to show that it is a risk averse thing to do in my opinion. If bikes are to have 3rd party insurance then what's to stop runners (or roller skating kids) to need it too? What about people playing contact sports such as rugby or football, shouldn't each of them have insurance incase they inadvertently hurt someone? etc etc

I don't think that the risks justify insurance. In addition while it's relatively inexpensive insurance now, if it were mandatory it would undoubtedly increase in price very quickly.

I don't know if this has been covered before but we shouldn't be creating obstacles that hamper people getting out of their 2 tonne cars and onto bikes. Previous generations have totally fecked the planet, we desperately need to limit this.

 

I do agree with you that insurance would undoubtedly massively increase in price if it became obligatory, trouble is we often end up with legislation on matters that should have been done sensibly before legislation had to be imposed. Anyway we are not going to wreck the climate for much longer as the government is forcing the use of electric cars which are all going to be magicaly charged by sunlight

[Dave Payne]

 

Made me chuckle.

[cuthound]

17 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Don't quote statistics!? The world is run on stats, and while they can be used to deceive they are after all facts!

Anyhow, I didn't use statistics. 

Bizarrely you've used something not like for like in the same paragraph as your criticism of my runner v rider. 3rd party insurance for a 1 - 2 tonne machine is fairly unquestionable, it is not the same as needing insurance for a 0.01 tonne bike! The reason I use runners as an example (though kids on roller blades could also be used) is to show that it is a risk averse thing to do in my opinion. If bikes are to have 3rd party insurance then what's to stop runners (or roller skating kids) to need it too? What about people playing contact sports such as rugby or football, shouldn't each of them have insurance incase they inadvertently hurt someone? etc etc

I don't think that the risks justify insurance. In addition while it's relatively inexpensive insurance now, if it were mandatory it would undoubtedly increase in price very quickly.

I don't know if this has been covered before but we shouldn't be creating obstacles that hamper people getting out of their 2 tonne cars and onto bikes. Previous generations have totally fecked the planet, we desperately need to limit this.

 

Roller bladers, runners, rugby players and football players rarely, if ever share road space with cars.

I used to work in London and it was a daily occurrence to see cyclists damage cars when trying to squeeze through non-existent gaps and just ride off, or even collide with pedestrians legitamately crossing on a "green man" when the cyclists jumped red lights and ride off.

Registration and 3rd party insurance would at least allow the cyclist to be traced so that compensation could be claimed.

Edited September 27, 2017 by cuthound

[sirweste]

Just now, cuthound said:

Roller bladers, runners, rugby players and football players rarely, if ever share road space with cars.

I used to work in London and it was a fault occurrence to see cyclists damage cars when trying to squeeze through non-existent gaps and just ride off, or even collide with pedestrians legitamately crossed on a "green man" when the cyclists jumped red lights and ride off.

Registration and 3rd party insurance would at least allow the cyclist to be traced so that compensation could be claimed.

Agreed, they don't obviously. But as you're aware I was specifically responding to comments about injury to walkers. Now a slightly different topic is punishment for breaking the law.

Difficult one to police, but I do agree that folk should be hunted down and made to pay for out they damage. You're in favour of mandatory ID cards then? Follows the same traceability theory. There just simply needs to be an increased policing to change the behaviour of the few.

What about if the government insures every bike? That wouldn't implead people getting on bikes and would offer compensation for people hurt or who have suffered damage. And everyone benefits from it.

14 minutes ago, Dave Payne said:

 

Made me chuckle.

I bloody love that video

[mross]

4 hours ago, sirweste said:

the chances of my bike getting stolen are higher than the chances of what you describe.

It's not just about the likelihood of an event, you need to consider the consequences.  The loss of a bicycle can't be compared to a serious head injury!  Lots of activity clubs offer third-party insurance, even if it's not mandatory.

[cuthound]

I have no objection to compulsory I'D cards, or even taking DNA samples  from every citizen. I have nothing to hide.

Why should my and other people's taxes be used to provide extra policing or insurance for cyclists? I mean their not even a majority of the population.

Unless of course the government decides to provide free insurance for all vehicle users. Bet it'll  never happen though. 

[mrsmelly]

Mandatory ID cards are a brill idea. Speaking as someone with nothing to hide I am happy also to have dna samples photo and fingerprints on record, it would make it far easier for police to track scumbags down.

Blimey beaten to it by the Hound

Edited September 27, 2017 by mrsmelly

[sirweste]

Just now, mross said:

It's not just about the likelihood of an event, you need to consider the consequences.  The loss of a bicycle can't be compared to a serious head injury!  Lots of activity clubs offer third-party insurance, even if it's not mandatory.

Of course it can. The chances of the event happening and the potential (head injury being the more extreme) consequences of the event happening. With this you can compare the two, as per all risk analysis. 

[sirweste]

2 minutes ago, cuthound said:

I have no objection to compulsory I'D cards, or even taking DNA samples  from every citizen. I have nothing to hide.

Why should my and other people's taxes be used to provide extra policing or insurance for cyclists? I mean their not even a majority of the population.

Unless of course the government decides to provide free insurance for all vehicle users. Bet it'll  never happen though. 

By that logic why should we have extra policing for people who live in rough areas? Or perhaps, why should peoples taxes be used to help sick people? I mean they aren't even the majority of the population. Why should peoples taxes be used to pay for old buggers to mess about on the cut in their latter years when they could still be earning? I mean their not even a majority of the population.

If insurance were mandatory other peoples taxes could (and should in my opinion) be used as it would benefit everyone.