Laws on 'dangerous cyclists' to be updated

[Steve vRS]

Another very keen cyclist here.

I too agree that this amendment is welcome and hope it is used by the police to address the numerous dodgy e-bikes and electric motorbikes riden dangerously.

[Sporky]

Biker 1 said:

Perhaps they should put in a further amendment stipulating that if there is a cycle lane running adjacent to the road, cyclists MUST use it & not ride on the road. Punishment = death. Typical example the A24 dual carriageway north of Dorking.

Also death for any driver parking or driving in a cycle lane, and any pedestrian walking or standing in one?

What about death for any planner who puts a cycle lane in that's peppered with drains and obstructions?

Cycle lanes tend to be where all the crap from the road collects. They're often terrible places to ride a bike.

Edited by Sporky on Thursday 16th May 07:49

[Steve vRS]

Sporky said:

Cycle lanes tend to be where all the crap from the toad collects. They're often terrible places to ride a bike.

I’d much prefer there to be no cycle lane and the road to be a little bit wider. Oh and drivers not to think that the have exclusive use of the road as they pay their road tax

[tim0409]

Steve vRS said:

Another very keen cyclist here.

I too agree that this amendment is welcome and hope it is used by the police to address the numerous dodgy e-bikes and electric motorbikes riden dangerously.

Laws, updated or not, are meaningless if the Police aren’t enforcing them. I can only relate my experience in Edinburgh, where delivery cyclists routinely ride through red lights/pedestrian crossings and on pavements. A few weeks ago I stepped out of a building on one of the main squares in the centre and a delivery rider on an electric bike past within inches of me and my dog on the pavement travelling at what felt like 15mph. I also passed an illegal electric bike doing 20mph (no pedalling) yesterday, whilst I was on my motorbike. The Police just aren’t interested, which isn’t surprising when you consider they are talking about rolling out a trial to effectively decriminalise shoplifting as they don’t have the resources to investigate.

[gazza285]

Biker 1 said:

Perhaps they should put in a further amendment stipulating that if there is a cycle lane running adjacent to the road, cyclists MUST use it & not ride on the road. Punishment = death. Typical example the A24 dual carriageway north of Dorking.

Every single cycle lane I know in my local area has cars parked in it.

[heebeegeetee]

andyA700 said:

So, you admit to running red lights?

I do, not least as a pedestrian too (and pleade can we avoid discussing speed limits as motorists, my past embarrases me).

I think the red lights thing is a non issue based on epic hypocrisy and the law should be changed there too (to allow cyclists to use as give ways).

Steve vRS said:

Another very keen cyclist here.

I too agree that this amendment is welcome and hope it is used by the police to address the numerous dodgy e-bikes and electric motorbikes riden dangerously.

Motor vehicles are a separate issue from cycling, I believe laws are all in place anyway, but of course there are no police.

[Electro1980]

Sporky said:

Also death for any driver parking or driving in a cycle lane, and any pedestrian walking or standing in one?

What about death for any planner who puts a cycle lane in that's peppered with drains and obstructions?

Cycle lanes tend to be where all the crap from the road collects. They're often terrible places to ride a bike.

Edited by Sporky on Thursday 16th May 07:49

Most of them aren’t even cycle lanes, but shared use. The only actual cycle lanes I can think of are the major cycle routes in London.

Edited by Electro1980 on Thursday 16th May 08:06

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Awesome.

How many cyclists are killed each year?

How many pedestrians by cyclists?

Why can't we focus on tougher sentences for driver who injury and kill cyclists and pedestrians?

[Bonefish Blues]

CoolHands said:

I’m furious

[Louis Balfour]

Chris Boardman was on the Beeb this morning. He was saying that only three people per year are harmed by cyclists, so there is no need to legislate.

Edited by Louis Balfour on Thursday 16th May 08:14

[Bill]

Steve vRS said:

I too agree that this amendment is welcome and hope it is used by the police to address the numerous dodgy e-bikes and electric motorbikes riden dangerously.

There aren't enough BiB to enforce current laws...

[heebeegeetee]

Louis Balfour said:

Chris Boardman was on the Beeb this morning. He was saying that only three people per year are harmed by cyclists, so there is no need to legislate.

Edited by Louis Balfour on Thursday 16th May 08:14

I'm in agreement.

To best of my knowledge, with but one exception every cyclist prosecuted over the death of a pedestrian has gone to jail.

That is completely different to the experiences of drivers, with cases like Esme Weir being deeply shocking and impossible to understand.

[Type R Tom]

It does seem like another popularist attempt by a party desperately clinging on to power to win a few votes

Looking at the numbers reported here:

From 2012-2020 6% 305 of peds killed on pavement/verges were by a cyclists
From 2012-20, one of the 32 pedestrians who were killed by someone who jumped a red light was hit by a cycle

https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycling-and-ped...

I'm not against people being punished for the decisions they make, I can't help feel there are bigger fish to fry.

[Randy Winkman]

heebeegeetee said:

oyster said:

My driving behaviour is closely monitored for even minor infringements.

Dear God, I do disagree with that. There's very few police on the streets and roads nowadays, there's the odd camera dotted about.

I reckon about 0.001% of driving infringements are prosecuted (we can argue all day over the noughts), we're allowed to buy cars that can smash speed limits to smithereens, and for many decades sentences for bad driving that kills or changes lives have been derisory (this has only recently changed somewhat).

So sorry, I gave your last sentence some thought, I can't even begin to think why you think that is the case.

I agree with you. The "Why dont cyclists get prosecuted like drivers do?" argument makes no sense. I've been driving for 40 years and must have broken the speed limit 10,000 times and never been done for it. I've probably broken countless other laws too and have one fine for driving in a bus lane.

[Solocle]

spikyone said:

There are plenty of cycle paths near where I live that are terrible pieces of design. One is a split path with pedestrians; the cycle lane crosses people's driveways, is interrupted by junctions joining the main road, and even the entrance to a school. Inevitably, inattentive pedestrians merrily cross the white line into the cycle lane all the time, or allow their small children and dogs to run around, often glued to their phones or deep in conversation whilst oblivious to what their offspring or pet are doing.

The road alongside it is a relatively quiet residential road with lots of traffic calming. It's much safer and more convenient for cyclists to use the road.

A parallel rule would be drivers must use motorways...

Completely unworkable, and that's when the motorways aren't

spikyone said:

I don't understand why any cyclist would use a typical A road. For the most part though, if you want to enforce a "cyclists must use cycle paths" rule, a lot more work is needed on the design of those cycle paths.

As for A roads, they vary greatly, but the last ~200km class ride I did was pretty much entirely the A30 from Dorset to London. Some bits of shared path that got pointedly ignored in Surrey, as I was travelling far too fast to use them safely, never mind convenience.

The A30 was an easy to navigate, largely uninterrupted route, and pretty much the most direct route to London. Any significant deviation would probably have meant not reaching my destination.

[Louis Balfour]

heebeegeetee said:

Louis Balfour said:

Chris Boardman was on the Beeb this morning. He was saying that only three people per year are harmed by cyclists, so there is no need to legislate.

Edited by Louis Balfour on Thursday 16th May 08:14

I'm in agreement.

To best of my knowledge, with but one exception every cyclist prosecuted over the death of a pedestrian has gone to jail.

That is completely different to the experiences of drivers, with cases like Esme Weir being deeply shocking and impossible to understand.

I disagree.

I think that everyone who uses the road, regardless of the vehicle, should be subject to the same laws and punishments.

[Type R Tom]

Louis Balfour said:

heebeegeetee said:

Louis Balfour said:

Chris Boardman was on the Beeb this morning. He was saying that only three people per year are harmed by cyclists, so there is no need to legislate.

Edited by Louis Balfour on Thursday 16th May 08:14

I'm in agreement.

To best of my knowledge, with but one exception every cyclist prosecuted over the death of a pedestrian has gone to jail.

That is completely different to the experiences of drivers, with cases like Esme Weir being deeply shocking and impossible to understand.

I disagree.

I think that everyone who uses the road, regardless of the vehicle, should be subject to the same laws and punishments.

Should someone who has 3 pints and rode home from the pub lose their licence, maybe job etc and get reported in the local paper?

[funinhounslow]

Louis Balfour said:

I think that everyone who uses the road, regardless of the vehicle, should be subject to the same laws and punishments.

E-bikes motors cut out at 25km/h.

Should we fit 70mph limiters to other motorised vehicles?

[Louis Balfour]

Type R Tom said:

Louis Balfour said:

heebeegeetee said:

Louis Balfour said:

Chris Boardman was on the Beeb this morning. He was saying that only three people per year are harmed by cyclists, so there is no need to legislate.

Edited by Louis Balfour on Thursday 16th May 08:14

I'm in agreement.

To best of my knowledge, with but one exception every cyclist prosecuted over the death of a pedestrian has gone to jail.

That is completely different to the experiences of drivers, with cases like Esme Weir being deeply shocking and impossible to understand.

I disagree.

I think that everyone who uses the road, regardless of the vehicle, should be subject to the same laws and punishments.

Should someone who has 3 pints and rode home from the pub lose their licence, maybe job etc and get reported in the local paper?

Why not? If they are on the road and pissed?

[Solocle]

Louis Balfour said:

I disagree.

I think that everyone who uses the road, regardless of the vehicle, should be subject to the same laws and punishments.

So you drive at 50 mph on single carriageways (40 in Scotland), 60 on duals (50 in Scotland), take mandatory breaks, and maintain a tachograph, do you?

That's the rules for HGV drivers.

Louis Balfour said:

Why not? If they are on the road and pissed?

What if they're walking on the road, down a country lane with no pavement? On the road and pissed.