To be glad that *some* police forces are going to tackle the dangerous overtaking of cyclists?

[GilMartin]

And that I live in one of the areas trying this out?

road.cc/content/news/215826-close-pass-policing-could-be-rolled-out-16-forces-yours-one

Whilst I don't think it will tackle every dick who flies past with millimeters to spare or those who deliberately target cyclists with punishment passes, it will hopefully raise enough awareness amongst those who act carelessly rather than meliciously.*

• Yes, I know some cyclists can ride badly, not have lights and have earphones on and run read lights and yes I support efforts to tackle that too. It isn't an either or situation.

[Ivanaflump]

pedestrian has priority and they

This bit^ right here. I am getting slightly irritated by you peppering the thread with made up laws, made up statistics and then trying to work out of it with lots of 'yeah but'

[Ivanaflump]

*worm out of it.

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

And if you have moved onto the crossing they have to stop. i.e. if they hit you it is their fault.

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

Where have I made up any statistics?

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

There is nothing that says you only have to stop if the pedestrian gives you sufficient time etc. And the bit for pedestrians is advisory, the bit for motorists is law, as it says "you MUST"

[Ivanaflump]

www.farrarsbuilding.co.uk/contributory-negligence/

It's called contributory negligence.

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

How about the actual law:
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/25/made

[Ivanaflump]

I don't think you actually understand anything do you?

I can imagine you furiously searching for anything to try and prove your badly made points on the thread.

A pedestrian does not have priority over a car until they are in the crossing- your 'actual law' link just repeats what I have.

If you jump out in front of a car on the crossing and have done it at the last minute while the car is within the speed limit, all those court cases (which is the actual law ) will indicate that there could well be contributory negligence.

Don't let that stop you on your anti car tirade though.

[MuseumOfCurry]

Cyclist behaviour seems to get more and more aggressive with every passing year.

I note that it's unacceptable for drivers to become impatient with a cyclist blocking the lane ahead and pass, but it's fine for the uber-cyclists to swerve into the main lane to pass the too-slow cyclists in front of them without waiting for a gap in traffic.

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

All those court cases? There's one on your link. Without knowing the exact details it's hard to say, but it was held to be 50/50. The contributory negligence did not absolve the driver of their duty to stop.

[Dowser]

Omg that was a typo.
It should have read
It really scares me WHEN cyclists are on the road.

It's amazing how omitting one words alters the whole sense of a sentence.

It scares me that even though I give them a really wide berth they might wobble or do something silly and end up under my wheels.

A teenage boy did this. Fortunately the bus driver in the opposite direction witnessed it and the police ruled I was not to blame.
Thankfully I managed to stop after he'd rolled across my bonnet and landed on the road but it was touch and go.
I was going past him when without warning or arm signals just turned right in front of me to go to a road that was on the other side of the road.

Another nasty experience was last year in a very rural location on a narrow road I was slowly overtaking the cyclist . The road was clear and I was in the other half of it. A driver came from nowhere and wanted to claim his part of the road and he wasn't stopping. I had to stop wait for the cyclist to undertake me so I could get back in to let the other driver past.

It was terrifying. I thought the cyclist might have stopped to let me in but no she just kept on going and we could have been injured.

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

"A driver came from nowhere"

Then you overtake at an unsafe place and should have waited. I'll bet the cyclist was more scared than you were.

[iLoveCoffeeAndChocolate2017]

I think anyone who uses the road should be made to register their mode of transport, take a test and pay tax. Fair is fair.

[iLoveCoffeeAndChocolate2017]

Oh and pay for insurance- nearly forgot that then..... Lol

[PerpetualStudent]

I cycled to work today, I love the idea that some of you barely deign to avoid killing or maiming me just because the law doesn't require me to pay tax and insurance for my bike. What a bunch of charmers.

[iLoveCoffeeAndChocolate2017]

I just think it's fair if everyone pays, has proven they've passed a test to show they are aware of road safety/ rules of the road- and is covered if they are in an accident or cause one....... What's unreasonable about that???

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

What tax are you expecting cyclists to pay? The reason for needing to do a test before driving a car is because cars can and do cause orders of magnitude more damage and injury. If there was such a problem with cyclists as people seem so keen to insist on then this would be reflected in statistics for accidents etc, which it isn't.

Most of the things people complain about idiot cyclists doing aren't because they don't know about it. They know they aren't allowed to run red lights, be out at night without lights etc, they just don't care. Similarly with car drivers using their mobile - they know perfectly well they shouldn't do.

Insurance is primarily to protect yourself. A cyclist is extremely unlikely to cause the level of damage that a car does and there's nothing to stop you suing them if they do cause damage to your property. (And many cyclists do have insurance, because they want to protect themselves.)

[user1471545174]

I'd have more concern for cyclists on roads if they had any at all for me on the pavement.

(Not a driver).

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

There we go again treating cyclists as one homogenous group. So you don't care about me cycling on the road because other cyclists go on the pavement? (And yes, pavement cyclists piss me off too. I walk as well.)

[iLoveCoffeeAndChocolate2017]

My partner is a biker- I show a lot of courtesy to bikers and cyclists alike- and I drive a car....
Demonstrating safety awareness and having insurance is a way of safeguarding.... and I'm very curious as to why anyone would disagree with taking the time to acquire these? Other than a flagrant disregard for others' safety. It's not about whether a cycle causes more damage.... And as for tax- use the road- pay for it- we have to.

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

If there was a "flagrant disregard for other's safety" then that would be backed up by statistics showing how dangerous cyclists were. You don't legislate things just for the sake of it, particularly as there would be significant negative effects (reduction in numbers of people cycling which further marginalises it as a form of transport, reduced health benefits etc).

And can I ask again, what tax are you talking about?

[iLoveCoffeeAndChocolate2017]

Lol... Nevermind eh....

[WantToRunAgain]

The keyboard warriors who display such aggression to cyclists may be partly the reason that cyclists are subjected to so much vile behaviour nowadays.

The constant crap that is spouted about cyclists and the minimalising of the dangerous driving that kills dozens of cyclists every year is frightening.

Cyclists daft behaviour can in no way be compared to drivers - it's absolute nonsense to suggest otherwise. Most cyclists are drivers so we pay tax anyway. And yes I do sometimes jump on the pavement if the option is that or being mown down by yet another inpatient fucking driver.

[WantToRunAgain]

*impatient

[iLoveCoffeeAndChocolate2017]

Just sayin...