Cyclists not prosecuted enough!

[Flinders]

If the likes of this bloke didn't encourage dangerous driving by trying to get people off charges on technicalities, the roads would be safer, and cyclists wouldn't need to ride on pavements in the first place.

Where I live there are two routes to my GP's. One is short and flat, the other means going right into town and back out again, adds several miles, and involves hills.
Because of the fact that the first road is so dangerous to cyclists, I do the longer route.

A neighbour has just had his work moved to a place about two miles away- the route uses only that dangerous road. If he cycled, he'd either have to run the gauntlet of that road (and as a London cycle commuter for years who would go on any legal road there without qualms, I won't use this road- even the toughest local roadies avoid it) or do a trip of about 6 miles up and down hills. Or ride on the pavement, on a tarmac pavement that gets just about no foot traffic (though at times it does get overgrown, mostly is it passable).
Of course, if the motorised traffic had more patience and better judgement, the pavement wouldn't be used by cyclists. As it is, and with motorised vehicle drivers getting aggressive at cyclists and lorries passing them so close it scared me so much that the one time I tried the road I ended up on the tarmac even though I never go on footpaths, out of sheer self-preservation) he's going to drive.
On that road, lorries regularly take out each others' wing mirrors, and even pedestrians on the pavement at the bus stop have been hit by wing mirrors.

[Mike Sales]

How many injuries/damages have been caused by those cyclists you dislike?? Note - I'm not agreeing with their cycling as you describe it.

Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds
Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury

A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.

The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

[Ruadh495]

after we actually own the roads, unlike motor users who are there by "Conditional Licence"! MM

This is something I'm curious about. I'm aware that pedestrians have the right to use the highway, while motorists may only do so subject to a license.

I ride an e-bike. Now that has a motor, so comes under the Road Traffic Act (1835?), however by complying with the EAPC Regulations 2015 it benefits from an exemption which causes it to be treated as a pedal cycle in law. That would appear to be a license; though a general one applied to all vehicles meeting a certain set of requirements, rather than the specific one a motorist must obtain.

Do non-powered cyclists use the road via a general license as above, or by right? Equestrians?

[thirdcrank]

... This is something I'm curious about. I'm aware that pedestrians have the right to use the highway, while motorists may only do so subject to a license.

I ride an e-bike. Now that has a motor, so comes under the Road Traffic Act (1835?), however by complying with the EAPC Regulations 2015 it benefits from an exemption which causes it to be treated as a pedal cycle in law. That would appear to be a license; though a general one applied to all vehicles meeting a certain set of requirements, rather than the specific one a motorist must obtain.

Do non-powered cyclists use the road via a general license as above, or by right? Equestrians?

With a brain-teaser like that you need a loophole merchant.

In the meantime, the status of a pedal cycle as a vehicle ie whose driver has a right to use what we now call the carriageway was decided in Ellis-v- Nott Bower (1895)
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4846&p=34561

[Mattyfez]

If you & others don't like to comply with traffic regulations keep on "Shank's Pony!
So Zero Tolerance over traffic laws please.

That's taking my point out of context somewhat, I certainly abide by traffic laws. My point was the police have limited resource so are taking a logical aproach of targeting those that cause most injury/damage.

It's simply unrealistic to have every infraction prosecuted given the available man power, so they are sensibly targeting the most risky behavior with the resources they have.

[andrewk]

]How many injuries/damages have been caused by those cyclists you dislike?? Note - I'm not agreeing with their cycling as you describe it..

You are missing the point....its NOT about injuries caused by bad cyclists.
Its about risky/law breaking/stupid cyclists p***ing off motorists and reinforcing their negative opinion of cyclists. Such negative opinions can develop into to negative attitudes and actions....close passes, cars driving straight at you in an attempt to psyche you out and make you give way etc. Yes, a minority of motorists perhaps, but I've been on the receiving end of these manoevres often enough and its not pleasant!
Cyclists are NOT all good and motorists are NOT all bad (in fact most cyclists are also motorists) but the bad apples from both camps ought to be stopped and prosecuted. Passing yet more legislation in absence of effective enforcement would be stupid and pointless. Enforcement requires more traffic cops (especially for cyclists as cameras can't photograph non existant number plates).

[Hobbs1951]

Cycling UK and other cycling lobby groups; e.g the LCC, should be lobbying hard for government to introduce a Strict Liability law mirroring that in Holland -

http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/ ... -play-nice

Jon.

[ANTONISH]

Cycling UK and other cycling lobby groups; e.g the LCC, should be lobbying hard for government to introduce a Strict Liability law mirroring that in Holland -

http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/ ... -play-nice

Jon.

This isn't going to happen. Whenever this idea has been mooted in the past the "Tabloids" have screamed their outrage.
In the countries where this exists most cyclists are pretty scrupulous in conforming to the laws of the road. We have a substantial number of "utility" cyclists that don't conform to the traffic laws. As has been said most cyclists will take to the pavement in the interest of self preservation but this is against the law ( although rarely enforced - London may be an exception) so giving priority to those who have the right to be there is a essential.
Unfortunately the irresponsible cyclists are prepared to ignore the rights or safety of pedestrians - who will include vulnerable people like Merseymouth - ( being 67 he is in my opinion only a lad of course )
Even "responsible" cyclists will go over a cycle crossing at red if the road is empty. I got severely ticked off for this by a group of Belgian cyclists I was riding with.
Until the problem of irresponsible cyclists is dealt with ( and I'm aware that in terms of injury and death to pedestrians they are insignificant to the overall total), I don't see the strict liability law being met with any sympathy by the"Tabloids" and certainly not any motoring organisations.
I was in Ostend yesterday - trams, cars, cyclists, pedestrians conforming to the system.
We in this country don't tend to conform.

[Shootist]

Cycling UK and other cycling lobby groups; e.g the LCC, should be lobbying hard for government to introduce a Strict Liability law mirroring that in Holland -

http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/ ... -play-nice

Jon.

So, the irresponsible lycra lout who swerves in an out of traffic, ignores pedestrian crossings, red lights, and one way streets will no longer be responsible when a car hits him and breaks many of his bones?

And the idea that cyclists should not be prosecuted because they are far more likely to be injured is a crock. Motorcyclists are in the same situation, often being injured when no other person is involved yet the police make every effort, even down to helicopter enforcement, to nail them.

[JimL]

I think people are arguing for presumed liability not strict liability and in civil law not criminal law.

Is it not the case that the statistics show that in motor /bicycle collisions where blame can be attached the motorist is to blame in 70/80% of cases . So it is surely reasonable that when the the facts cannot be independently established and it is the word of the cyclist v the motosists ( or the cyclists is dead ) the presumption should be , for civil cases where the balance of proability attains, that the motorist is to blame and I don't see any reason to wait for every cyclist to obey the letter of the law before introducing it.

As for the argument that misrceant cyclists are the source of the hatred of some motorists towards cyclists I always find that depressing to read on cycling forum as it is complete nonsense that law abiding motorists are so outraged to see cyclists on the pavement or jumping red lights that they have to indulge in a dangerous punishment pass of the next cyclist they see.

[reohn2]

So, the irresponsible lycra lout who swerves in an out of traffic, ignores pedestrian crossings, red lights, and one way streets will no longer be responsible when a car hits him and breaks many of his bones?

IMHO,and it isn't just cyclists wearing lycra who are guilty of such bad riding,and such cyclists should be brought to book,but that would need a police force to implement the law.
Unfortunately the UK has decided it can't afford such a force,so we're left with a free for all.
It's also my experience over many,many hundreds of thousands of miles cycling that those guilty of causing the most damage and flouting existing laws such as RLJing and dangerous use of the roads,are motorists,not all motorists but a significant and growing minority.
I find this when I'm either cycling and driving,ie; I see see far more motorists RLJing than I ever see cyclists doing the same.

And the idea that cyclists should not be prosecuted because they are far more likely to be injured is a crock.

I completely agree,the sooner errant cyclists are brought to book the better for all cyclists.

Motorcyclists are in the same situation, often being injured when no other person is involved yet the police make every effort, even down to helicopter enforcement, to nail them.

I can't comment on motorcyclists other than to say there are IME a lot of 'w/end warriors' on motorcycles who really should be on the race track,and I've been stopped by the police from continuing my journey in the car on a few occasions due to a 'motorcycle fatality' further along the road I'm on,which is usually the Cat and Fiddle road between Macclesfield and Buxton,it's usually around the Rainow turn off,just outside the average speed camera section

[reohn2]

I think people are arguing for presumed liability not strict liability and in civil law not criminal law.

Is it not the case that the statistics show that in motor /bicycle collisions where blame can be attached the motorist is to blame in 70/80% of cases . So it is surely reasonable that when the the facts cannot be independently established and it is the word of the cyclist v the motosists ( or the cyclists is dead ) the presumption should be , for civil cases where the balance of proability attains, that the motorist is to blame and I don't see any reason to wait for every cyclist to obey the letter of the law before introducing it.

As for the argument that misrceant cyclists are the source of the hatred of some motorists towards cyclists I always find that depressing to read on cycling forum as it is complete nonsense that law abiding motorists are so outraged to see cyclists on the pavement or jumping red lights that they have to indulge in a dangerous punishment pass of the next cyclist they see.

Spot on.

[Shootist]

Is it not the case that the statistics show that in motor /bicycle collisions where blame can be attached the motorist is to blame in 70/80% of cases . So it is surely reasonable that when the the facts cannot be independently established and it is the word of the cyclist v the motosists ( or the cyclists is dead ) the presumption should be , for civil cases where the balance of proability attains, that the motorist is to blame

Ok, so you are arguing that the responsibility for a road traffic collision involving a cyclist, the motorist should be blamed because of what some other motorists did? OK, it's a point of view I suppose. Trial by similarity, the burden of proof being that the majority of motorists were guilty so you must be.

[reohn2]

Is it not the case that the statistics show that in motor /bicycle collisions where blame can be attached the motorist is to blame in 70/80% of cases . So it is surely reasonable that when the the facts cannot be independently established and it is the word of the cyclist v the motosists ( or the cyclists is dead ) the presumption should be , for civil cases where the balance of proability attains, that the motorist is to blame

Ok, so you are arguing that the responsibility for a road traffic collision involving a cyclist, the motorist should be blamed because of what some other motorists did? OK, it's a point of view I suppose. Trial by similarity, the burden of proof being that the majority of motorists were guilty so you must be.

The point being made is that those in charge of the bigger and therefore more dangerous vehicle should have more responsibility.
Don't forget that Presumed Liability doesn't just apply to cyclists but to any vehicle in respect of smaller vehicles and indeed in relation to pedestrians,in other words the current 'power pyramid' is inverted,with the pedestrian at the top.

[thirdcrank]

Hats off to Mr Loophole: where other one-hit posters have failed, he's got a thread going about RLJ-ing, pavement cycle, presumed liability and probably more. All without bothering to join the forum. Respect.

Thinks. Is there a way of bringing in helmets?