Penalty points for over taking cyclists?
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational...
Not sure if this has been discussed, but the PH search function is woeful, and I couldnt find anything about it.
So what about if a cyclist is doing 5mph, and you not over take them? I dont even think my car can go that slow on tick over in 1st!
Not sure if this has been discussed, but the PH search function is woeful, and I couldnt find anything about it.
So what about if a cyclist is doing 5mph, and you not over take them? I dont even think my car can go that slow on tick over in 1st!
johnS2000 said:
Would cyclists also be subject to the 15 mph limit?
If it's a "normal" speed limit, then yes of course they would. It would be bloody annoying for them too, I'd imagine. From my experience of cyclist on the road, the last thing I'd want is a load of drivers stuck behind me who aren't allowed to overtake if it's safe to do so, either. This proposal seems designed to annoy everyone and benefit no-one. The average speed in central London is around 12mph so not sure what this will achieve anyway. My journey by bike I average 15mph (and yes I stop at traffic lights). I pass miles of cars stuck in traffic and get home around 20 minutes quicker than when I drive...yet still some cars think cyclists are holding them up when in reality, the queuing cars hold up the faster cyclists.
Magic919 said:
kambites said:
If it's a "normal" speed limit, then yes of course they would. It would be bloody annoying for them too, I'd imagine.
But why? Normal speed limits apply to motor vehicles. Either way, there is precedent for cyclists being prosecuted for cycling dangerously fast and one could argue that cycling faster than motorised traffic is allowed to travel for safety reasons is, almost by definition, dangerous.
Edited by kambites on Friday 16th May 15:34
KillerHERTZ said:
Depends on the road, I cycle too and from work. On the way home from work each night I cycle down a narrow 1 way street (the correct way!) and cars/buses speed past me with only cm's clearance. I have, twice been clipped all because they cant be bothered to wait 20secs.
Of course the correct approach is to ride primary and hold the lane though that will get some cars sitting on their horn (ooer!). I had one the other morning, I'm cruising at 22mph in a 30, car shouting at me so he can squeeze past to get to the stationary cars 30 yards up the road. Whether I was there or not, he'd just get to sit behind the same car on the same traffic gaining nothing.kambites said:
Hmmm... debatable - the wording of the law is ambiguous to the point that it seems to depend on how and by whom the speed limit was set. Last time I looked at the road traffic act (which was a long time ago), I interpreted at as (rather oddly) saying that national speed limits do not apply to cyclists but specific speed limits do?
Either way, there is precedent for cyclists being prosecuted for cycling dangerously fast and one could argue that cycling faster than motorised traffic is allowed to travel for safety reasons is, almost by definition, dangerous.
There are no speed limits for cyclists unless in some Royal parks. As you say, dangerous cycling can be prosecuted but speed itself is not a cause for dangerous cycling. Fact is, cycling fast does not statistically cause any significant KSI and is not worth bringing in legislation to deal with an issue that in reality does not cause hardly any KSI. Money is better spent dealing with issues that seriously injure and kill on a daily basis from motorised vehicles.Either way, there is precedent for cyclists being prosecuted for cycling dangerously fast and one could argue that cycling faster than motorised traffic is allowed to travel for safety reasons is, almost by definition, dangerous.
Edited by kambites on Friday 16th May 15:34
0markymark0 said:
There are no speed limits for cyclists unless in some Royal parks. As you say, dangerous cycling can be prosecuted but speed itself is not a cause for dangerous cycling. Fact is, cycling fast does not statistically cause any significant KSI and is not worth bringing in legislation to deal with an issue that in reality does not cause hardly any KSI. Money is better spent dealing with issues that seriously injure and kill on a daily basis from motorised vehicles.
I should think that road-awareness courses for cyclists would be a good idea (it seems those that do get caught up in incidents are those with weaker roadcraft), as well as increasing the condition and the cleanliness of our roads (I wouldnt want to ride in the gutter with all that gravel and the majority of road defects, so I can sympathise with cyclists who dont want to squash right next to the curb)As above, this is sensationalist nonsense.
The full document (which is actually about traffic signs) is here
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
The "cycle streets" bit is at the very bottom of page 28, and is one paragraph long:
"We will be taking forward the opportunity to trial the “Cycle Streets” concept within the revised TSRGD. This is a bold initiative, which is being considered by some of the Cycle Cities and London, possibly including a ban on overtaking on lightly trafficked roads where cycle flows are high. Subject to any scheme trial, this prohibition could be accompanied by an advisory speed limit of 15 mph. "
i.e
- its a trial
- in some of the cycle cities
- on some lightly trafficed roads (i assume this is the quiet back roads used by Sustrans and the like).
- POSSIBLY including a ban on overtaking
- COULD also have an ADVISORY 15mph "limit".
The full document (which is actually about traffic signs) is here
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
The "cycle streets" bit is at the very bottom of page 28, and is one paragraph long:
"We will be taking forward the opportunity to trial the “Cycle Streets” concept within the revised TSRGD. This is a bold initiative, which is being considered by some of the Cycle Cities and London, possibly including a ban on overtaking on lightly trafficked roads where cycle flows are high. Subject to any scheme trial, this prohibition could be accompanied by an advisory speed limit of 15 mph. "
i.e
- its a trial
- in some of the cycle cities
- on some lightly trafficed roads (i assume this is the quiet back roads used by Sustrans and the like).
- POSSIBLY including a ban on overtaking
- COULD also have an ADVISORY 15mph "limit".
Mr SFJ said:
Surely that'll reduce every town centre, every country lane and most dual carriageway's in the country to 15-20mph whilst a cyclist is on it. And lets be honest, how many people will just ignore it and overtake anyway?
It's not a proposal to ban overtaking cyclists in general. It is a proposal that certain quiet urban streets with high flows of bike traffic will have a 15mph speed limit and no overtaking of bicycles. kambites said:
Hmmm... debatable - the wording of the law is ambiguous to the point that it seems to depend on how and by whom the speed limit was set. Last time I looked at the road traffic act (which was a long time ago), I interpreted at as (rather oddly) saying that national speed limits do not apply to cyclists but specific speed limits do?
Either way, there is precedent for cyclists being prosecuted for cycling dangerously fast and one could argue that cycling faster than motorised traffic is allowed to travel for safety reasons is, almost by definition, dangerous.
As I understand it, ordinary speed limits do not apply to traffic which is not motorised - this is pretty much how I thought the law stood.Either way, there is precedent for cyclists being prosecuted for cycling dangerously fast and one could argue that cycling faster than motorised traffic is allowed to travel for safety reasons is, almost by definition, dangerous.
thatdude said:
I should think that road-awareness courses for cyclists would be a good idea (it seems those that do get caught up in incidents are those with weaker roadcraft), as well as increasing the condition and the cleanliness of our roads (I wouldnt want to ride in the gutter with all that gravel and the majority of road defects, so I can sympathise with cyclists who dont want to squash right next to the curb)
I believe around 86% if cyclists hold a driving license but I agree, even though I;d driven for 15 years before properly cycling, some skills for being on a bike are only really learnt by being on a bike. The 'roadcraft' as you mention is definitely a needed skill for a cylist but it can contradict the roadcraft ideals for a car. For example, holding primary (middle of the lane) is an excellent safe place for a cyclist to be yet a car driver will think they're in the way. I often get shouted (more than once car used to push me into cycle lane) when in reality that's full of road debris, int he (opening) door zone and close to pedestrians stepping without looking. Cycling road craft tells yu not to be there yet car drivers cannot understand it.I think if cyclists require some roadcraft training, I would suggest more beneficial would be car drivers taking 2 hours cycling through busy streets to see what the effetc of dangerous driving does.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff