Pushbikes and lights
Discussion
I am genuineley interested as to what the BiB think about this....
Speeding and other forms of "dangerouse driving" is frowned apon as it can and does lead to accidents and therefore injury/death and so,is policed in part as a safety precaution.
This leads me onto the point. I work shifts 6-2 and 2-10 and so commute at least one journey when it is or very nearly dark and have to drive across town and along an A road littered with idiots on pushbikes dressed in black with no lights front or rear,and often not even a reflector. All drivers know how difficult it is to spot these people yet in all my years of driving I have never yet seen one stopped by the Police. In fact I have seen police drive past them. Are they not considered dangerous?
I feel that the 10 or so bikes I pass every AM or PM are far more likely to be involved in an accident as no one can see them. Any risk assesment would consider it a likely outcome.
I feel frustrated as I have also never seen a big campaign (Big like the kill your speed) aimed at educating these morons.
I was stopped on the way to work last winter at 05.30 on a Sunday morning for doing something like 75 on a wide single lane carraigeway in the dry. I more than accept this and took it in good spirit. I have thought since however that did not really make the raods any safer, but would it have made a bigger impact on road safety if the same BiB parked up in the same place at the same time on the Monday morning he could have rounded up 10 law breaking? pushbikes who might have by now got themeselves kitted out with lights etc and be actually makeing the local roads that bit safer?
Are the BiB permitted to enforce road safety on cyclists? In the same way that they do on motorists.
This is not in any way meant to be a dig at the police but is a heart felt question but now the nights are drawing in I do feel strongly
about the amount of cyclists that we, as drivers can't see and whose fault it woud be should one of us hit a cyclist.
Can Tony rec etc help?
Speeding and other forms of "dangerouse driving" is frowned apon as it can and does lead to accidents and therefore injury/death and so,is policed in part as a safety precaution.
This leads me onto the point. I work shifts 6-2 and 2-10 and so commute at least one journey when it is or very nearly dark and have to drive across town and along an A road littered with idiots on pushbikes dressed in black with no lights front or rear,and often not even a reflector. All drivers know how difficult it is to spot these people yet in all my years of driving I have never yet seen one stopped by the Police. In fact I have seen police drive past them. Are they not considered dangerous?
I feel that the 10 or so bikes I pass every AM or PM are far more likely to be involved in an accident as no one can see them. Any risk assesment would consider it a likely outcome.
I feel frustrated as I have also never seen a big campaign (Big like the kill your speed) aimed at educating these morons.
I was stopped on the way to work last winter at 05.30 on a Sunday morning for doing something like 75 on a wide single lane carraigeway in the dry. I more than accept this and took it in good spirit. I have thought since however that did not really make the raods any safer, but would it have made a bigger impact on road safety if the same BiB parked up in the same place at the same time on the Monday morning he could have rounded up 10 law breaking? pushbikes who might have by now got themeselves kitted out with lights etc and be actually makeing the local roads that bit safer?
Are the BiB permitted to enforce road safety on cyclists? In the same way that they do on motorists.
This is not in any way meant to be a dig at the police but is a heart felt question but now the nights are drawing in I do feel strongly
about the amount of cyclists that we, as drivers can't see and whose fault it woud be should one of us hit a cyclist. Can Tony rec etc help?
I'm very much with you on this Ed. Maybe the concesus is that a gruesome death is enough to deter them in future.
I've seen a guy on a bike today with more high viz apparel than a North Sea helicopter, calmy riding down the road and turned straight up a one way street, the wrong way, onto an on-coming car. Pillock.
How many cyclists do you see ignore traffic lights as well ? (Sorry - no wish to hi-jack the thread)
I've seen a guy on a bike today with more high viz apparel than a North Sea helicopter, calmy riding down the road and turned straight up a one way street, the wrong way, onto an on-coming car. Pillock.
How many cyclists do you see ignore traffic lights as well ? (Sorry - no wish to hi-jack the thread)
I recall a sorry tale from some years ago where a motorist was killed in a collision with a cyclist at night on an unlit country road. The cyclist - who was dressed in dark clothes - was also killed. IIRC, there was some trouble with the insurers and the motorist's widow was threatened with the loss of her home (etc., etc.) following a claim from the cyclist's family. My memory is uncertain over the exact details but this is close enough.
The motorist's widow had to prove at her own expense that the cyclist's head and tail lights had not been lit at the time of the accident. The police appeared unwilling to accept that anyone other than the motorist could have been to blame for the accident and would not involve the Forensic Science Service in determining this crucial piece of evidence. Oh, and the motorist's blood was tested for alcohol, but not the cyclist's!
Let's move to a licencing scheme for cycles (such as exists in the CI) and then perhaps they will be policed as strictly as are motorists.
Please note that in no way am I anti-police ... just anti the system and though processes that seems to tie some policemen (non-PC, but I don't care) to assuming the overriding guilt of the motorist.
Streaky
The motorist's widow had to prove at her own expense that the cyclist's head and tail lights had not been lit at the time of the accident. The police appeared unwilling to accept that anyone other than the motorist could have been to blame for the accident and would not involve the Forensic Science Service in determining this crucial piece of evidence. Oh, and the motorist's blood was tested for alcohol, but not the cyclist's!
Let's move to a licencing scheme for cycles (such as exists in the CI) and then perhaps they will be policed as strictly as are motorists.
Please note that in no way am I anti-police ... just anti the system and though processes that seems to tie some policemen (non-PC, but I don't care) to assuming the overriding guilt of the motorist.
Streaky
Fully agree that cyclists are sometimes their own worst enemies when it comes to safety. However I think the EU wants to make all accidents involving cyclists the motorist's fault and to make the motorist's insurance cover the costs (bye bye no claims discount). Therefore it looks like society is on the side of the cyclist -- green, sustainable, always right -- and against the motorist -- monster, greedy, unacceptable use of road space, etc.
I think it would be a travesty if the motorist was held responsible full stop, although I am sure it is the way this country is going. I would prefer to see cyclists required to take responsibilty for there actions, after all the road is a dangerous place to be and unfortunatley as soon as a person can ride upright they are entitled to ride on the road. Even if they are 4 years old.
I would have thought that any country that can make railway track profitable(?) and bring in a licences for kites (no I am not making that up) could pull off licences or mandatory training/tests.
I know I will probably be btanded a heretic and therefore flogged for this
I would have thought that any country that can make railway track profitable(?) and bring in a licences for kites (no I am not making that up) could pull off licences or mandatory training/tests.
I know I will probably be btanded a heretic and therefore flogged for this
Ed Bilboe said:
I think it would be a travesty if the motorist was held responsible full stop, although I am sure it is the way this country is going. I would prefer to see cyclists required to take responsibilty for there actions, after all the road is a dangerous place to be and unfortunatley as soon as a person can ride upright they are entitled to ride on the road. Even if they are 4 years old.
I would have thought that any country that can make railway track profitable(?) and bring in a licences for kites (no I am not making that up) could pull off licences or mandatory training/tests.
I know I will probably be btanded a heretic and therefore flogged for this
In Switzerland they have an excellent system where EVERY cycle MUST have an insurance, displayed on a 2" sqare numberplate issued by the insurance. This costs only around £10/year. Anyone without one gets tugged. This also makes it easier to "tug" a biker 'cs BiB can check the insurance i.e. name.....
Mind you they still have idiots freedom there to do anything they want contrary to the Highway Code equivalent, sponsored of course by the swiss green slime...........otherwise known as algae.
Mind you I don't mind "having a go" at any cyclist on the pavement, unlit or whatever, some other pensioners wouldn't......... They really look funny under the front wheels of my Dodge truck (only joking of course)
>> Edited by JMGS4 on Friday 12th September 07:57
I used to commute to work into Cardiff, using my bike in the City Centre from the train station to work. I had all the knobs and whistles - shiney helmet (no jokes, please), reflective yellow jacket, lights front & back and even flashy LED lights on my jacket.
I absolutely kept to the rules of the road, knowing how dangerous it can be for bikes, but after two years of doing this my only conclusion is that 95% of cyclists are their own worst enemy, the number of 'jumped' reds and cycling over pavements at junctions... well I've lost count.
I saw a terrible accident near the fire station where a bike jumped a red and got hit side on by a 7.5 tonner. The cyclist broke a leg, I think, but he actually asked me to be a witness for him. My response was - 'what, you want me to tell the police you jumped a red light and it was all your fault'...
I absolutely kept to the rules of the road, knowing how dangerous it can be for bikes, but after two years of doing this my only conclusion is that 95% of cyclists are their own worst enemy, the number of 'jumped' reds and cycling over pavements at junctions... well I've lost count.
I saw a terrible accident near the fire station where a bike jumped a red and got hit side on by a 7.5 tonner. The cyclist broke a leg, I think, but he actually asked me to be a witness for him. My response was - 'what, you want me to tell the police you jumped a red light and it was all your fault'...
Ed.....
Yes the Police do enforce the laws relating to pedal cyclists, in fact..our C/Inspector has come up with loads of ideas in relation to cyclists (he rides everywhere himself) with the result that they are being educated and reported on occasions.
The thing that gets right up my nose are the ones that ride straight through Red Traffic lights and expect the cars etc to give way......hhmmm....you want to see the lok on their faces when they get a ticket for it...its a real Peach and nothing more than they deserve.
There are rules etc for people riding without lights, reflectors etc but words of advice is 'normally'suffice in these cases.
Yes the Police do enforce the laws relating to pedal cyclists, in fact..our C/Inspector has come up with loads of ideas in relation to cyclists (he rides everywhere himself) with the result that they are being educated and reported on occasions.
The thing that gets right up my nose are the ones that ride straight through Red Traffic lights and expect the cars etc to give way......hhmmm....you want to see the lok on their faces when they get a ticket for it...its a real Peach and nothing more than they deserve.
There are rules etc for people riding without lights, reflectors etc but words of advice is 'normally'suffice in these cases.
When I was a student at Bristol (around 1993) the police regularly targeted the student cyclists (and rightly so, they were dangerous!).
In fact, I even had a friend who claimed he was done for speeding on his bike on the 30mph Blackboy Hill on Whiteladies Road!
BiB - is this possible?
In fact, I even had a friend who claimed he was done for speeding on his bike on the 30mph Blackboy Hill on Whiteladies Road!
BiB - is this possible?
T4R said:
I've seen a guy on a bike today with more high viz apparel than a North Sea helicopter, calmy riding down the road and turned straight up a one way street, the wrong way, onto an on-coming car. Pillock.
Something has to be done about the bike riders in Central London - running red lights - running pedestrian crossings (you wouldn't believe the abuse that I regularly get from cyclists when I'm crossing zebra crossings) and one way streets.
About three years ago I was heading home through town from the office on a Sunday (boo!) down a little one way street and was hit, practically head on, by a cyclist coming the wrong way into the one-way street at fairly high speed - knackered wing, bonnet, lights and windscreen (just shy of GBP1k worth of damage) all of which I had to pay for - and I even received papers that he had filed in Court in an attempt to sue me for causing the accident!!!
>> Edited by porsche944 on Friday 12th September 10:34
It certainly wouldn't do any harm to press for some regulation of cyclists, generally encouraging them to take more responsability for their own safety - and some sort of regestration/traceability would seem to be the way to go to help with this. Wouldn't fancy paying £10 just so I can use my old bike once a year when I'm worried the new one might get nicked though!
Part of the problem is that on a bike, it can be much safer to brake the rules than in a car - provided it's done sensibly, and doesn't inconvenience anyone. But we're all in favour of encouraging discretion when it comes to enforcement, arn't we!
I wouldn't be in favour of trying to enforce things like helmets or hi-viz clothing. Unlike lights, the actual benefit of these is highly debatable, and I wouldn't want the fact that I don't wear a helmet to be an acceptable defence for someone driving into me!
Sean
Part of the problem is that on a bike, it can be much safer to brake the rules than in a car - provided it's done sensibly, and doesn't inconvenience anyone. But we're all in favour of encouraging discretion when it comes to enforcement, arn't we!
I wouldn't be in favour of trying to enforce things like helmets or hi-viz clothing. Unlike lights, the actual benefit of these is highly debatable, and I wouldn't want the fact that I don't wear a helmet to be an acceptable defence for someone driving into me!
Sean
tonyrec said:
It is very possible......but i dont know anyone thats reported one for speeding.
Main problems/offences seems to be Contravening ATS.
I got cautioned many years ago, when going full tilt down a steep hill. BiB said I was doing about 35 in a thirty, and that it was not only rather dangerous, but breaking the law.
I think it would be a little difficult to get ticketed for, as the paperwork couldn't not possibly be filled out correctly (vehicle reg?)
Sparks
tsh said:
I wouldn't be in favour of trying to enforce things like helmets or hi-viz clothing. Unlike lights, the actual benefit of these is highly debatable
I don't think there is any debate that helmets provide protection for the most vulnerable part of your body. Not using one is of course your choice, though this obviously reflects on what value you put on your own life.
porsche944 said:
Something has to be done about the bike riders in Central London - running red lights - running pedestrian crossings (you wouldn't believe the abuse that I regularly get from cyclists when I'm crossing zebra crossings) and one way streets.
Got to post my agreement on this.
I work in Piccadilly Circus and you chance serious injury every time you cross the road here - from the Cyclists. I regularly get abuse from them for daring to walk across a pedestrian crossing with a green man/red light. I’ve seen three collisions with pedestrians in the last month alone, and had at least two lucky escapes myself.
206xsi said:
When I was a student at Bristol (around 1993) the police regularly targeted the student cyclists (and rightly so, they were dangerous!).
In fact, I even had a friend who claimed he was done for speeding on his bike on the 30mph Blackboy Hill on Whiteladies Road!
BiB - is this possible?
I was hauled out at the bottom of Westbury Hill in the 60s(longer and straighter than Whitladies) by a BiB in a Morris 1000 pale blue noddy car for exceeding the limit on my "racing" pedal bike. he mentioned that I was "well over the limit" (limit 30mph, and he did 45 to catch me, so I was prolly doing 35 if lucky), he just pointed to the gravel at the side of the road and said that stuff hurts!!! Very intelligent as I later discovered to my disgust and pain on another road... he said that he could have "done" me........
oh the mad things one does as a teenager.....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff