Jump to content

Cycling law review


Midnight

Featured Posts

23 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Do all you guys/galls have 3rd party pet insurance then?

We do. It’s included in most pet insurance policies. 

17 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Anywhere from the A pillar back can be a blind spot and, whilst I agree that it is important to be always looking, nobody can be looking everywhere all the time, thus nobody can guarantee to see everything from the A pillar back, all of the time. Particularly a cyclist at speed, overtaking or undertaking, in slow moving traffic...

I very nearly squished a cyclist this afternoon. A tight left hand turn at traffic lights on a narrow road and the pillock had come up my inside and was about level with the passenger door as I turned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I hesitated before typing the bit about the side road. In fact, thinking about it, I can't actually recall not seeing a cyclist entering from a side road ahead of me, but I do recall them entering from a side road to my left when in slow moving traffic, and suddenly appearing by my front wing

Anywhere from the A pillar back can be a blind spot and, whilst I agree that it is important to be always looking, nobody can be looking everywhere all the time, thus nobody can guarantee to see everything from the A pillar back, all of the time. Particularly a cyclist at speed, overtaking or undertaking, in slow moving traffic, which is what many of them do, leaving a gap of inches, and definitely not a cyclist at night with no lights.

I really trying to make the point that, whatever the requirements of drivers, there can be legitimate reasons for not seeing a cyclist, and they should make themselves highly visible and I will add that they should ride defensively, rather than arrogantly and aggressively.

In addition, there will be times when a driver doesn't see a cyclist when they probably should. If there is an accident, the cyclist will come out of it the worst.

I think 3rd Party is included with pet health insurance so, if you have health insurance, you almost certainly have 3rd Party cover.

imdont know what 3rd Party costs on its own as we always have full cover of some kind.

I personally don't have pet insurance. I don't see the point. What I have saved each year in premiums will pay for / towardsa any costs should I incur them.

 

And, on my bike I ride very aggressively, riding defensively (in my experience) makes most / some drivers "take" too much of your space. 

Yes, you should be looking for cyclists. They are the most vulnerable road users so drivers should be aware of them. Just as you should for motor bikes.

Obviously exceptions of people riding badly by jumping lights are excluded. But filtering in traffic is not.

Edited by sirweste
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Anywhere from the A pillar back can be a blind spot and, whilst I agree that it is important to be always looking, nobody can be looking everywhere all the time, thus nobody can guarantee to see everything from the A pillar back, all of the time.

But if you are at a junction it is up to you to be sure that pulling out will not cause a collision.  If you can't see that the road is clear you must wait, no excuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mross said:

But if you are at a junction it is up to you to be sure that pulling out will not cause a collision.  If you can't see that the road is clear you must wait, no excuses.

Indeed, fairly scary that it seems to be acceptable to not see riders... Almost coming across that the rider is at fault for not being visible enough....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, sirweste said:

I personally don't have pet insurance. I don't see the point. What I have saved each year in premiums will pay for / towardsa any costs should I incur them.

 

And, on my bike I ride very aggressively, riding defensively (in my experience) makes most / some drivers "take" too much of your space. 

 

 

if your dog causes an accident involving, god forbid, a personal injury, how will you pay the compensation that may be awarded by a court from the 'savings' in premiums?  

if you are observed to be riding aggressively and an eye witness confirms that in court you are likely to be found culpable if you knock down a pedestrian or cause a motor vehicle to have an accident avoiding you.

or do you think you are somehow special and immune from the modern trend for seeking compensation?

anyone who doesn't bother to insure 'because the risk is so slight' obviously doesn't understand how a competitive insurance market works. 

 

 

............................  yes, you've just confirmed my suspicions 100%   :banghead:

 

................................. oh, and if you are seeking reasons why the general public tends to have a dislike of cyclists, you have explained it very concisely.

Edited by Murflynn
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sirweste said:

Indeed, fairly scary that it seems to be acceptable to not see riders... Almost coming across that the rider is at fault for not being visible enough....

Yes.  When I was an active motorcyclist I objected to the notion that we were responsible if a car driver did not see us.  I also objected the ' headlights on' campaign.  Car drivers cannot estimate the speed of an oncoming motorcycle when it shines a bright headlight at them.  But. I learnt to ride defensively and would never overtake cars near a junction as I knew they might brake or turn suddenly.  Nor would I filter past stationary cars where they might pull out or turn right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if "assertively" would be a better word. One can be assertive and defensive (in the sense of deterring risks that others might cause, or mitigating their impact) at the same time.

For example, as a daily cyclist in London, if cycling down a narrow stretch of road, with parked cars on either side,  I will position myself in the middle of carriageway to discourage overtaking. 

Conversely, if I see a car with diplomatic plates on then I will keep out of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mross said:

............................ But, I learnt to ride defensively and would never overtake cars near a junction as I knew they might brake or turn suddenly.  Nor would I filter past stationary cars where they might pull out or turn right.

I spent many hours on defensive driving courses when working for BP - it was compulsory to maintain my company driving permit.  What a pity that someone still seems to consider it a weakness to drive or ride defensively on today's crowded roads.  Of course, it is perfectly possible to drive or ride positively and defensively at the same time.  For a cyclist to suggest that he doesn't ride defensively, I can only wish him the greatest luck and hope he doesn't put an unnecessary burden on the hard-pressed NHS, unfortunately it will probably just be a matter of time before .................  :(.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

I wonder if "assertively" would be a better word. One can be assertive and defensive (in the sense of deterring risks that others might cause, or mitigating their impact) at the same time.

For example, as a daily cyclist in London, if cycling down a narrow stretch of road, with parked cars on either side,  I will position myself in the middle of carriageway to discourage overtaking. 

Conversely, if I see a car with diplomatic plates on then I will keep out of the way.

Do you mean on the middle of your half of the road?  Or in the middle of the whole carriageway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mross said:

Do you mean on the middle of your half of the road?  Or in the middle of the whole carriageway?

 Sorry, I meant the former, ie the middle of my half of the road. In effect it requires anyone wishing to overtake me to treat me in the same way they would treat a car - ie it's OK to overtake if there is nothing coming the other way.

Edited by Scholar Gypsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only object to cyclists who ride in the middle of the lane in a country road that is narrow.  I hesitate to overtake.  This is on a road with a 60mph limit and the cyclist is doing 25 mph but 'owns the road'.  He only has to move one metre to the left to allow me to pass him at a respectful distance.  He would still be clear of drain covers, and pedestrians stepping into the road.

I see too many cyclists who are passive aggressive.  I am happy to follow a cyclist for miles if he is doing close to the appropriate speed, as in a town or village.  But where the speed limit is 50 or 60 mph the police should be cautioning cyclists for impeding traffic under the offense of "inconsiderate driving".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

I wonder if "assertively" would be a better word. One can be assertive and defensive (in the sense of deterring risks that others might cause, or mitigating their impact) at the same time.

For example, as a daily cyclist in London, if cycling down a narrow stretch of road, with parked cars on either side,  I will position myself in the middle of carriageway to discourage overtaking. 

Conversely, if I see a car with diplomatic plates on then I will keep out of the way.

Yep thats a solid word for it. I don't overtake aggressively or out. But I do assert my presence and road position. This I learnt on my daily commute in Bristol.

On country roads and the like I will encourage cars past whenever I can, if I'm on my bike on a 60 road I'm very aware of the inconvenience I posed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

 

if your dog causes an accident involving, god forbid, a personal injury, how will you pay the compensation that may be awarded by a court from the 'savings' in premiums?  

if you are observed to be riding aggressively and an eye witness confirms that in court you are likely to be found culpable if you knock down a pedestrian or cause a motor vehicle to have an accident avoiding you.

or do you think you are somehow special and immune from the modern trend for seeking compensation?

anyone who doesn't bother to insure 'because the risk is so slight' obviously doesn't understand how a competitive insurance market works. 

 

 

............................  yes, you've just confirmed my suspicions 100%   :banghead:

 

................................. oh, and if you are seeking reasons why the general public tends to have a dislike of cyclists, you have explained it very concisely.

I'm fairly sure that people have only just started insuring pets. What was done 20 years ago if some got eaten by someones dog?

I don't represent cyclists on the whole. I'm merely arguing my opinion on life risk and insurance. I'm perhaps the more extreme case as I have a very different perception of risk than most people I think.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At lock 17 on the Wolves 21 the cycletrack slopes steeply downwards, narrows, and bends under the footbridge. I think the surface also changes from "cycleway" to brick. Today we witnessed a lycra clad cyclist descend this slope at reckless speed. A second cyclist on a petrol driven pushbike was travelling in the opposite direction through the restriction, also too fast but rather slower than the first cyclist. They met head on which stopped them both dead and both came forcefully off their bikes. The first cyclist had his leg tangled nastily in the frame. The second cyclist was laying under his bike with petrol pouring onto his clothes. His helmet was knocked off and he appeared to be in shock and bleeding significantly from a face injury.

Boaters provided assistance but the cyclists declined the suggestion that an ambulance be called. First cyclist was angry that his bike was damaged but showed no concern for the injuries inflicted upon the second cyclist.

Have reported this incident to CaRT.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mross said:

But if you are at a junction it is up to you to be sure that pulling out will not cause a collision.  If you can't see that the road is clear you must wait, no excuses.

You misunderstand me... I was referring to cyclists pulling out from a junction, not me. When I'm pulling out of a junction, everything is ahead of the windscreen, so I see absolutely everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sirweste said:

Indeed, fairly scary that it seems to be acceptable to not see riders... Almost coming across that the rider is at fault for not being visible enough....

See my reply to Mross. You are either completely misunderstanding me, or twisting my words. I am suggesting neither of what you say.

as for riding very aggressively, I hope you mean assertively, and that you appreciate that there is a time and place for assertive riding, and a time and place for defensive riding.

Good luck if you actually ride very aggressively:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sirweste said:

I personally don't have pet insurance. I don't see the point. What I have saved each year in premiums will pay for / towardsa any costs should I incur them.

You’re lucky. One of ours had £6,000 of operations in her first 18 months. If we hadn’t had insurance she’d have ended up crippled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sirweste said:

I agree, I am, though I just don't see it as risky enough to warrant insurance. As I age I'm sure my perception of risk will change, it has so far.

I don't know how things use to be but I don't understand the new age desire for compensation payouts

Do all you guys/galls have 3rd party pet insurance then?

I know common sense isn't very common but surely cheap insurance makes sense. Yes My vehicle ( car ) is insured as is my boat as is my dog as all these items can cause serious damage. I arnt personaly insured as I don't run, EVER, sport and exercise are bad for you just go to a hospital a and e department if you don't beleive me and count the cyclists/sportsman in there. I suppose not doing sport must be bad for you as my dad who never did any died young aged 90 and my mum who has never done any could die young as she is only 96 at present perhaps she should take up gym membership :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sirweste said:

 What was done 20 years ago if some got eaten by someones dog?

I don't represent cyclists on the whole. 

 

1.  20 years ago peeps (and ambulance chasing lawyers) weren't looking for compensation every time there was an incident.

2. no, but you help to give all the others a bad name;  trouble is, you really can't see it - that is what makes you so irresponsible.

24 minutes ago, WotEver said:

You’re lucky. One of ours had £6,000 of operations in her first 18 months. If we hadn’t had insurance she’d have ended up crippled. 

similar - ours had double cataracts at age 4 - cost £6,000.  without insurance he would have ended up blind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard10002 said:

You misunderstand me... I was referring to cyclists pulling out from a junction, not me. When I'm pulling out of a junction, everything is ahead of the windscreen, so I see absolutely everything.

I read it that way and it is still up to you to see them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

Is this a bit like, "if lights were compulsory on bikes at night, it would prevent some people from being able to afford to bike any longer" ??  

Well, they are compulsory, and plenty of people dont bother to have them - Perhaps the government should be buying lights for those who "cant afford to buy them".

I agree that insurance isnt compulsory, but it's not a bad idea, and relatively cheap, given that it usually covers the bike itself, as well as third party risks.

 

I'm pretty sure at one point. I believe it is still the case, that my local constabulary will give you a set of lights.

 

no excuse really.

 

on a different note through membership of the cycling tourist club now cycling uk. I get free 10million pounds worth of 3rd party liability insurance. British cycling also does the same.

 

 

I also agree that no new laws need to be made, existing ones need to be enforced first.

 

 

5 hours ago, mross said:

Yes.  When I was an active motorcyclist I objected to the notion that we were responsible if a car driver did not see us.  I also objected the ' headlights on' campaign.  Car drivers cannot estimate the speed of an oncoming motorcycle when it shines a bright headlight at them.  But. I learnt to ride defensively and would never overtake cars near a junction as I knew they might brake or turn suddenly.  Nor would I filter past stationary cars where they might pull out or turn right.

I always find it's very hard to judge distance and closinf speed on a vehicle with one light.  that's why it's easier with cars. if they have both working that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is important to remember that insurance is not so that if you cripple someone they are covered and get compensation, if you cripple someone then it's you that needs cover so that it doesn't cost you everything you own and a bankruptcy paying it yourself. It would take a lot of premium savings to cover a million pound claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

I think it is important to remember that insurance is not so that if you cripple someone they are covered and get compensation, if you cripple someone then it's you that needs cover so that it doesn't cost you everything you own and a bankruptcy paying it yourself. It would take a lot of premium savings to cover a million pound claim.

Which is the same point in post #44.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get back on topic -

To repeat what I said 180 odd posts ago, the legislation is already in place, it just needs the will and wherewithal to enforce it.

'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.

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.