Cyclist

[Newbie to this]

3 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

But there's really only impunity for those that choose not to be responsible / accountable - you seem keen to want to tar every cyclist with the same brush. 

Not at all, just the majority that I see on a daily basis breaking the rules of the road.

8 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

It's not even like everybody driving a car is actually insured, as an example.

And you would still have cyclists that flaunt the law, but their vehicle and in turn hopefully the rider, would be traceable.

Also it would probably go a long way in deterring those who break the law now knowing there is little chance of being caught.

[Raja Clavata]

2 hours ago, mudpatten said:

A fast stretch of road near me is the scene of regularily squished cyclists who get sucked under the wheels of 40 ton artics by the slipstream.

The number of them dressed from head to foot in urban camo black, is astonsihing.

The real irony is that they ride immediately adjacent to a 15 ft wide, recently resurfaced, well lit and clearly signposted Cyclepath.

Why?

No opinion on the dress code.

I don't know the stretch of road you refer to obviously but the stop start nature of cycle paths can be a real problem. Stopping, starting and changing direction (on and off a foot path) are known accident hotspots. Often the cycle path disappears precisely where the cyclists and other road users could really do with one.

15ft wide cycle path!? what city is this?

We can draw parallels here - people who don't "shoot" will never understand our passion just like people that don't ride and bike understand cyclists. The fact is that cycling is increasingly becoming popular, some would argue necessary. Can the same be said about shooting? 

Just now, Newbie to this said:

Not at all, just the majority that I see on a daily basis breaking the rules of the road.

And you would still have cyclists that flaunt the law, but their vehicle and in turn hopefully the rider, would be traceable.

Also it would probably go a long way in deterring those who break the law now knowing there is little chance of being caught.

What's the split then in your opinion - good vs. bad (people riding on bikes)?

I get the sentiment on traceability, but I don't see how it's practical - as an example: 10 year olds don't normally drive cars. It would be a minefield.

[Newbie to this]

12 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

What's the split then in your opinion - good vs. bad (people riding on bikes)?

From what I see, bear in mind it's mainly central London - 20% vs 80%

 

14 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I get the sentiment on traceability, but I don't see how it's practical - as an example: 10 year olds don't normally drive cars. It would be a minefield.

So should a 10 year old have impunity against the road laws, just because they aren't old enough to drive a car.

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, Newbie to this said:

From what I see, bear in mind it's mainly central London - 20% vs 80%

I agree it's a nightmare in central London, but there you go, your assessment loosely fits with mine - 20% cyclists and the other 80% people riding bikes. I find the driving in central London shocking too, do you think it's comparable with driving behaviour throughout the country?

So should a 10 year old have impunity against the road laws, just because they aren't old enough to drive a car.

I'm not a lawyer but how many 10 year olds have been tried and convicted of any breaking any laws (save perhaps the most outrageous ones)? Like a said a nightmare and the implications not thought through - just with one example cited.

 

[Newbie to this]

15 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I agree it's a nightmare in central London, but there you go, your assessment loosely fits with mine - 20% cyclists and the other 80% people riding bikes. I find the driving in central London shocking too, do you think it's comparable with driving behaviour throughout the country?

Yes, just in a more compact space.

15 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I'm not a lawyer but how many 10 year olds have been tried and convicted of any breaking any laws (save perhaps the most outrageous ones)? Like a said a nightmare and the implications not thought through - just with one example cited.

Maybe that is the answer, deal with the 10 year olds as you would with other laws, and so on until they reach an age where they are deemed fully accountable under the law.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Newbie to this

[southeastpete]

On 28/09/2020 at 21:00, 12gauge82 said:

All my actions have always been lawful. Two years ago I prevented a gentleman from being assaulted in a road rage incident on the m5, the police who attended thanked me, as did several other shocked motorists who were held up in the fast lane. I'm happy to stick my neck out as long as my actions are lawful, necessary, and reasonable in the circumstances, which is very different to openly admitting to criminal acts. 

The trouble is, I don’t think you would be lawful in committing a citizens arrest for someone standing on a kids bike. It’s for indictable offences. If you touched him in the process it could be deemed assault. He would then have every right to defend himself appropriately from your illegal citizens arrest (assault) and use an appropriate level of force to repel you. He could also then level charges at you for the assault. And you would be at more risk of losing your licence than a chap who stood on a bike that had been thrown on the floor in front of him....

[The Heron]

If you deliberately jump or ride through a red light then you deserve all you get 

[12gauge82]

3 hours ago, southeastpete said:

The trouble is, I don’t think you would be lawful in committing a citizens arrest for someone standing on a kids bike. It’s for indictable offences. If you touched him in the process it could be deemed assault. He would then have every right to defend himself appropriately from your illegal citizens arrest (assault) and use an appropriate level of force to repel you. He could also then level charges at you for the assault. And you would be at more risk of losing your licence than a chap who stood on a bike that had been thrown on the floor in front of him....

Totally incorrect, criminal damage would absolutely be covered and asking him to remain until the police arrived would be totally reasonable. 

[Scully]

On 05/10/2020 at 09:58, Raja Clavata said:

 

Why not just have a way of identifying everyone - I know you're a bit fan of the big brother model of society where the government knows where everyone is and what they are doing 24/7 😛 

 

Given the attitudes of many cyclists, I can understand why they would resist being readily identified, but as road users I can't think of any reasons why they shouldn't be. 

Many mount cameras on their helmets so other road users offending them can be readily identified, but other road users even with dash cams, have no means of identifying them. Yeah, I can see why they would resist. 😉

 

[Yellow Bear]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Given the attitudes of many cyclists, I can understand why they would resist being readily identified, but as road users I can't think of any reasons why they shouldn't be. 

Many mount cameras on their helmets so other road users offending them can be readily identified, but other road users even with dash cams, have no means of identifying them. Yeah, I can see why they would resist. 😉

 

👍

[Vince Green]

On 27/09/2020 at 16:57, strimmer_13 said:

This guy caused a 4 mile queue on the a303 recently. 

The A303 has to be the worst road in the country. I hate it with a vengance. People like that just make my blood boil.

[Vince Green]

Electric scooters are the new hazard round here, some of them can do 40mph (allegedly) riding on the road weaving in and out of traffic

[Stonepark]

Still missing the sense of proportion, if a a runner of 100kg at 10mph equates to 740ftlbs energy.

Likewise a cylist and bike of 125kg is doing 20mph at top speed that equates to 3700ftlbs.

A standard small car of 1250kg inc passenger doing 30mph equates to 83,000ftlbs and if doing 60 mph 331,000ftlbs.

A car driver is not held to the higher standards of a HGV driver. 2,650,000 (30mph)  to 10,600,000 ftlbs (60mph).

The reason you require a licence for a car, hgv, aeroplace etc is due to the proportional damage any accident or collision will do to yourself or others.

A bicycle is not in the same league, hence like pedestrians is not regulated to the same extent.

 

Whilst admitedly (like car drivers) there is a hardcore of cyclists who disregard the law (and often common sense) they are only a small proportion but are often highly visible and frequently cause issues.

There is always a law abiding group who never put a foot (or should that be peddle) wrong.

Then there is the middle group who obey all the sensible rules and laws but ignore guidance and opionions that are unsuitable, unsafe or downright silly due to the poor and inadequate design of car orientated junctions with traffic lights, roundabouts, cycle lanes, cycling to the left, cycling single file, and not using the road to the fullest extent etc  but importantly are not breaking any laws.

I would venture that 50% of motorists complaints are with regards the former group and rightly justified, and 50% of complaints with the latter group, even though the latter group are not doing anything wrong and it is drivers lack of education and tolerance which is the issue.

 

[Scully]

33 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Electric scooters are the new hazard round here, some of them can do 40mph (allegedly) riding on the road weaving in and out of traffic

Pedestrians are going to have to become aware of the ‘electric’ potential for accidents.

For whatever reason cyclists won’t use or even fit bells ( drag coefficiency? 😂) and although electric cars have horns there are more and more electric or silent types of transport on the roads nowadays. 
In pedestrianised areas within our towns cyclists are still allowed, and yesterday in Kendals town centre ( it isn’t pedestrianised but there is no kerb, so you get the impression it is ) I was confronted by the first electric skate board I’d seen. Must admit it looked great fun, but I was just about to walk across the road when I spotted this young lad on one;  totally silent and shifting at an impressive speed, he waved and smiled as he sailed on by. 
The habit of stepping out into roads because we can’t hear anything coming is a thing of the past, and with the greatly increased number of cyclists out there, and electric vehicles, we do it at our peril. 
 

[WalkedUp]

A pavement cyclist doing 15-20mph down hill almost hit me yesterday at 13.15 as I stepped out of our office door. Today at a similar time he almost hit a newly pregnant architect we employ. I was not pleased on either occasion but he didn’t hear me shout with his ear phones in. Just a prediction but a strong feeling that tomorrow he is likely to end up under the wheels of an artic on the main road. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by WalkedUp

[southeastpete]

8 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Totally incorrect, criminal damage would absolutely be covered and asking him to remain until the police arrived would be totally reasonable. 

I don’t think in this day and age you would get away with having a scrap because someone stood on a bike. And what if there turned out not to actually be any damage? 

It has to be reasonable and proportionate. An if he chose to walk away after, (bearing in mind the level of the offence and risk of immediate harm or damage to others) what would be the options available? Would simply ringing the police and following at a distance suffice? Yes. So you choosing to put hands on someone, over such a low level offence, with no continuing risk to anyone or anything, would, I believe, be legally viewed as a disproportionate response and therefore assault.

But if you want to get in public fights on the high street over some fed up guy who trod on a bicycle and ‘may’ have caused about £15 of damage. In front of kids etc, well I just don’t think that’s behaviour fitting of a licence holder personally.

[12gauge82]

3 minutes ago, southeastpete said:

I don’t think in this day and age you would get away with having a scrap because someone stood on a bike. And what if there turned out not to actually be any damage? 

It has to be reasonable and proportionate. An if he chose to walk away after, (bearing in mind the level of the offence and risk of immediate harm or damage to others) what would be the options available? Would simply ringing the police and following at a distance suffice? Yes. So you choosing to put hands on someone, over such a low level offence, with no continuing risk to anyone or anything, would, I believe, be legally viewed as a disproportionate response and therefore assault.

But if you want to get in public fights on the high street over some fed up guy who trod on a bicycle and ‘may’ have caused about £15 of damage. In front of kids etc, well I just don’t think that’s behaviour fitting of a licence holder personally.

Who said anything about a fight, I would use reasonable, proportionate force if he refused to remain there, which is perfectly legal. Your wrong, its as simple as that. 

[southeastpete]

2 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Who said anything about a fight, I would use reasonable, proportionate force if he refused to remain there, which is perfectly legal. Your wrong, its as simple as that. 

Exactly. What is reasonable proportionate force if he chooses to walk away? With no one and nothing at risk of harm, any physical contact is pretty disproportionate.

Im not going to be so arrogant as to say your(re) wrong. As it not as simple as that, and thins like self defence cases never are as simple as that.

But if you ever test the theory out against a non violent and extremely low level offender of a potential criminal damage offence, please let me know how it turns out.

[Modafinale]

Can’t see how this can be seen as acceptable 

[WalkedUp]

France 

These tiny videos do not show any context. Literally anything could have just happened. The cyclist could have just run down that man’s child. Or the man could just be a thug. Either way very little information. 

[12gauge82]

24 minutes ago, southeastpete said:

Exactly. What is reasonable proportionate force if he chooses to walk away? With no one and nothing at risk of harm, any physical contact is pretty disproportionate.

Im not going to be so arrogant as to say your(re) wrong. As it not as simple as that, and thins like self defence cases never are as simple as that.

But if you ever test the theory out against a non violent and extremely low level offender of a potential criminal damage offence, please let me know how it turns out.

What is reasonable depends on the circumstances, so it would be impossible for me to to list all the possibilities. 

 

1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said:

What is reasonable depends on the circumstances, so it would be impossible for me to to list all the possibilities. 

 

The point is, that would be perfectly legal, unlike stamping on someone else's property, which is what would get you in trouble with the law. 

[Mice!]

Wow, some folk really don't like cycling do they, I'm sure its really annoying being held up and yes its annoying when they jump the lights but its hardly all cyclists. 

The only thing that annoys me is them wearing black , even if they have a light on the bike, hi viz is peanuts these days, it's so easy to miss a cyclist in the dark when its raining with oncoming traffic dazzling you with their headlights, if I had to use my bike during rush hour then I'd be using a neon bag, hi viz vest the works.

And those cyclists jumping the lights and not giving a damn are very likely the ones who will end up under a van car or truck.

And I'd also add, I see many more morons driving vehicles than riding bikes.

[WalkedUp]

I see very few people driving their cars in the pavements. I would agree that in total number it is likely that there are far more dangerous drivers than dangerous cyclists, however by proportion I’m not sure that would still stack. I work in a city centre so am exposed to poor cycling daily, near my home the cyclists are generally lovely. 

[12gauge82]

I find some of this thread alarming. While I totally understand many on here finding cyclist's annoying, especially if they're inconvenienced by them every day, there are a small minority of people on here who have openly admitted to carrying out criminal acts against other people and others who have lept to their defence (albeit wrongly and clearly not understanding the law they were trying to preach). 

All of this on a forum with what I've always considered to be some of the most law abiding section of society there is. It saddens me tbh. 

And just to add, we are a minority sport that is under threat of ever more regulation and constant attempts to ban what we do, yet others on here calling for ridiculous regulations on cyclist's. 

For the record I'm no cyclist. 

[Newbie to this]

21 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

we are a minority sport that is under threat of ever more regulation and constant attempts to ban what we do, yet others on here calling for ridiculous regulations on cyclist's. 

For the record I'm no cyclist. 

Cycling isn't only a sport though is it, it's a form of transport that uses roads, roads that have rules, rules that many of cyclists choose to flaunt, and anyone can buy/hire a bicycle and use it as transport.