Laws on 'dangerous cyclists' to be updated

[heebeegeetee]

Rufus Stone said:

Seriously, you are using that an an example of over zealous enforcement?

What was he sentenced to in the end?

No, I never said there was over zealous enforcement, I said motorists get an entirely different, very light touch enforcement.

It's worth repeating, everyone knows that if you want to kill, kill with a car. Even if you get done, the sentence will be minimal. Say the right thing and you may not even be charged. Or just blame the sun, and you'll walk free from court. All especially so of your victim is on two wheels.

[Rufus Stone]

heebeegeetee said:

No, I never said there was over zealous enforcement, I said motorists get an entirely different, very light touch enforcement.

It's worth repeating, everyone knows that if you want to kill, kill with a car. Even if you get done, the sentence will be minimal. Say the right thing and you may not even be charged. Or just blame the sun, and you'll walk free from court. All especially so of your victim is on two wheels.

Nonsense.

[Solocle]

Rufus Stone said:

Or it could be real and they were just cycling furiously.

It's a well dodgy segment with a little uphill kick at the end, and all the top ones actually show a higher average speed than maximum! It's wonky GPS.

Given the flat nature of the main stretch, 52 mph is impossible without a motor. Unless it was blowing a hurricane along Chelsea embankment or you were drafting a lorry doing the same speed (fastest I ever got doing that was 48.3 mph on an NSL DC).

[heebeegeetee]

Rufus Stone said:

heebeegeetee said:

No, I never said there was over zealous enforcement, I said motorists get an entirely different, very light touch enforcement.

It's worth repeating, everyone knows that if you want to kill, kill with a car. Even if you get done, the sentence will be minimal. Say the right thing and you may not even be charged. Or just blame the sun, and you'll walk free from court. All especially so of your victim is on two wheels.

Nonsense.

That's your opinion, though I'd like to know what it's based on, mine are based on over 40 years of following this topic.

Others are taking note too.
https://twitter.com/tony_eh/status/155694371418610...

[bmwmike]

Rufus Stone said:

heebeegeetee said:

No, I never said there was over zealous enforcement, I said motorists get an entirely different, very light touch enforcement.

It's worth repeating, everyone knows that if you want to kill, kill with a car. Even if you get done, the sentence will be minimal. Say the right thing and you may not even be charged. Or just blame the sun, and you'll walk free from court. All especially so of your victim is on two wheels.

Nonsense.

He's right though. From the style of reporting - it's never the driver the crushed the little girl, it's always the car - through to mitigating circumstances being accepted that frankly would be unacceptable anywhere else - didn't see them, sun was in my eyes, I sneezed, etc etc

[redback911]

Rufus Stone said:

Or it could be real and they were just cycling furiously.

I get furious with people nabbing cycle segments while on ebikes or motorcycles. I'd imagine it happens a lot on the cities.

Solocle said:

It's a well dodgy segment with a little uphill kick at the end, and all the top ones actually show a higher average speed than maximum! It's wonky GPS.

Given the flat nature of the main stretch, 52 mph is impossible without a motor. Unless it was blowing a hurricane along Chelsea embankment or you were drafting a lorry doing the same speed (fastest I ever got doing that was 48.3 mph on an NSL DC).

Yuppy, I looked the dude up. No power or HR measurement for that ride, which is a dead giveaway that someone is on a ebike or something else motorised. As an obsessive compulsive (and narcissist) I looked at his Strava profile and side-by-side comparison with my own stats, no way that guy is an elite cyclist.



Second fastest rider for the same segment registered 101 Watts, so again not a pedal bike.

[ukbabz]

Harpoon said:

Rufus Stone said:

Steve vRS said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/16/compet...

Yes, there’s an agenda here. The Telegraph is publishing these type of stories more frequently.

I would call 52 in a 20 zone irresponsible.

I would call it absolute bks and st stirring, gutter press reporting from the Telegraph.

Pretty much - the segment is here - https://www.strava.com/segments/13106975

If you look at the ride data I'd say the first genuine cyclist is at 25th place - during ride London when the roads were closed at 37mph.

The KOM time is 45mph not 52, which would be ridiculous to ride through if it was real. However recorded using the garmin app on the phone from a none pro makes it a reasonable assumption that his phone was bouncing around the place and crossed a segment.

[redback911]

bmwmike said:

Rufus Stone said:

heebeegeetee said:

No, I never said there was over zealous enforcement, I said motorists get an entirely different, very light touch enforcement.

It's worth repeating, everyone knows that if you want to kill, kill with a car. Even if you get done, the sentence will be minimal. Say the right thing and you may not even be charged. Or just blame the sun, and you'll walk free from court. All especially so of your victim is on two wheels.

Nonsense.

He's right though. From the style of reporting - it's never the driver the crushed the little girl, it's always the car - through to mitigating circumstances being accepted that frankly would be unacceptable anywhere else - didn't see them, sun was in my eyes, I sneezed, etc etc

This also reminds me of the tragic incident in Wimbledon last July, where two children were killed when a Land Rover crashed through the school fence. Someone was arrested and bailed, yet almost a year later, there has been no conviction. Recent reports cite a lack of investigators as the reason for the slow progress. Perhaps we should focus on improving funding for the police force first, rather than introducing spurious new laws.

[Electro1980]

Harpoon said:

Rufus Stone said:

Steve vRS said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/16/compet...

Yes, there’s an agenda here. The Telegraph is publishing these type of stories more frequently.

I would call 52 in a 20 zone irresponsible.

I would call it absolute bks and st stirring, gutter press reporting from the Telegraph.

I assume they ah e taken that from Strava data? The same data that once gave me a 100m world record in the middle of a 5k run? GPS signal gets screwed up all the time.

[Solocle]

Electro1980 said:

I assume they ah e taken that from Strava data? The same data that once gave me a 100m world record in the middle of a 5k run? GPS signal gets screwed up all the time.

93 mph

[Paul Dishman]

Crippo said:

Everyone should own a bicycle and be encouraged to use it for fitness, fun and nipping to the shops or dare I say it even riding to work or schools. Once you have ridden a bike then you may comment other wise I have heard too much from peop,le who haven’t ridden a bike for 20+ years who haven't a clue

That reads like you want to make cycling compulsory.

[JackJarvis]

sugerbear said:

Meanwhile…

Tribute to 'beautiful' baby who died in church car park https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqvnvpxejv8o

Note.. the headline is never about the driver.. always about the “car” doing the damage in an attempt to disassociate the driver from any blame.

Very random attempt at whataboutery. What does a tragic car park accident have to do with cycling laws being updated?

[Nomme de Plum]

Paul Dishman said:

Crippo said:

Everyone should own a bicycle and be encouraged to use it for fitness, fun and nipping to the shops or dare I say it even riding to work or schools. Once you have ridden a bike then you may comment other wise I have heard too much from peop,le who haven’t ridden a bike for 20+ years who haven't a clue

That reads like you want to make cycling compulsory.

No it doesn't unless you interpret words like 'should' and 'encouraged' as mandatory instructions.

[Nomme de Plum]

JackJarvis said:

sugerbear said:

Meanwhile…

Tribute to 'beautiful' baby who died in church car park https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqvnvpxejv8o

Note.. the headline is never about the driver.. always about the “car” doing the damage in an attempt to disassociate the driver from any blame.

Very random attempt at whataboutery. What does a tragic car park accident have to do with cycling laws being updated?

Hardly random and It indicates a lack of competent prioritisation with the sole intent of appeasing a certain sector of the electorate. Whilst 3 deaths are 3 too many it pales into insignificance compared to over circa 1800.

[JackJarvis]

Nomme de Plum said:

JackJarvis said:

sugerbear said:

Meanwhile…

Tribute to 'beautiful' baby who died in church car park https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqvnvpxejv8o

Note.. the headline is never about the driver.. always about the “car” doing the damage in an attempt to disassociate the driver from any blame.

Very random attempt at whataboutery. What does a tragic car park accident have to do with cycling laws being updated?

Hardly random and It indicates a lack of competent prioritisation with the sole intent of appeasing a certain sector of the electorate. Whilst 3 deaths are 3 too many it pales into insignificance compared to over circa 1800.

I disagree, it's just good old fashioned whataboutery.

Car drivers kill more people and always will, so let's just completely forget about cyclists and let them do as they please.

Also, why does it need to be about only deaths? As a pedestrian who works in a city centre I've experienced and witnessed several collisions and near misses caused by cyclists ignoring red lights. None of them were likely to result in a death, but discouraging poor cycling by tightening laws up doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

Also just to point out, I love cycling. I find it much more enjoyable than driving these days but I'd love to see the standard of road cycling improved.

[Paul Dishman]

Nomme de Plum said:

Paul Dishman said:

Crippo said:

Everyone should own a bicycle and be encouraged to use it for fitness, fun and nipping to the shops or dare I say it even riding to work or schools. Once you have ridden a bike then you may comment other wise I have heard too much from peop,le who haven’t ridden a bike for 20+ years who haven't a clue

That reads like you want to make cycling compulsory.

No it doesn't unless you interpret words like 'should' and 'encouraged' as mandatory instructions.

A not unreasonable interpretation.

We gave our bikes away a few years ago because we never used them. We’d moved closer to the centre of town so it was just as easy to walk and my wife decided she was too “ wobbly ” to continue to cycle. I occasionally consider buying myself a bike, but there’s no fun in riding around on my own so it’ll probably just sit in the garage like the old ones did.

[Gareth79]

JackJarvis said:

sugerbear said:

Meanwhile…

Tribute to 'beautiful' baby who died in church car park https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqvnvpxejv8o

Note.. the headline is never about the driver.. always about the “car” doing the damage in an attempt to disassociate the driver from any blame.

Very random attempt at whataboutery. What does a tragic car park accident have to do with cycling laws being updated?

Do you expect the "killer driver" to get life in prison? Do you think they will get prison at all?

[JackJarvis]

Gareth79 said:

JackJarvis said:

sugerbear said:

Meanwhile…

Tribute to 'beautiful' baby who died in church car park https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqvnvpxejv8o

Note.. the headline is never about the driver.. always about the “car” doing the damage in an attempt to disassociate the driver from any blame.

Very random attempt at whataboutery. What does a tragic car park accident have to do with cycling laws being updated?

Do you expect the "killer driver" to get life in prison? Do you think they will get prison at all?

No idea. Probably a discussion for a different thread, this one is about cycling laws.

[bmwmike]

Paul Dishman said:

Crippo said:

Everyone should own a bicycle and be encouraged to use it for fitness, fun and nipping to the shops or dare I say it even riding to work or schools. Once you have ridden a bike then you may comment other wise I have heard too much from peop,le who haven’t ridden a bike for 20+ years who haven't a clue

That reads like you want to make cycling compulsory.

I think Crippo has a good point though that people driving around in their wheeled armchairs, parking on pavements as a way to be "considerate" to other road users, but completely ignoring pavement users, and often parked in cycle lanes as a result of being half on a pavement, really can't appreciate how anxiety inducing cycling can be on roads.

I saw a video the other day of bus drivers being made to sit on an exercise bike whilst a bus drove past them at 30mph and close distance, and they were visibly stting themselves. I think thats a great idea for the test.

[Randy Winkman]

JackJarvis said:

Gareth79 said:

JackJarvis said:

sugerbear said:

Meanwhile…

Tribute to 'beautiful' baby who died in church car park https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqvnvpxejv8o

Note.. the headline is never about the driver.. always about the “car” doing the damage in an attempt to disassociate the driver from any blame.

Very random attempt at whataboutery. What does a tragic car park accident have to do with cycling laws being updated?

Do you expect the "killer driver" to get life in prison? Do you think they will get prison at all?

No idea. Probably a discussion for a different thread, this one is about cycling laws.

Surely a key part of that is to put them in the context of laws for other road users?