Even more cyclists now breaking the law

[DistingusedSocialCommentator]

Most drivers and pedestrians will be aware of this as many have seen or been victims of a cycle rider.

Watching Talktv this morning there was a lady who had lost her mother due to an e-scooter rider on the pavement. The show had a lawyer on talking about what I agree with, IE cyclists are very hard to identify if they get away from an accident.

E-scooters we all know are against the law unless provided for by your local council in central London. Several times over the years, me and the family have had close calls with them on pavements and parks as they zoom down, you cant hear them and they often dress in all black clothing.

Push bike riders are travelling faster and faster as many more have those battery packs on them

With the introduction of 20mph zones in vast areas of London, even more, push bike riders are now breaking the law, EG travelling well over 20mph in a 20mph and passing slower cars travelling at 20mph We are all aware how some push bike riders have ignored the rules for years, EG jump red lights, ignore pedestrians on crossings, cause accidents and walk of or rise off and now, much more able to break the speed limits off 20mph with almost 100% impunity and some that at red lights get o the pavement and cross a red light that way or some just ride on pavements

For the record, note, Its some cyclists not all but we have all seen them more so as going to work, or dropping off children at schools the speed of some of these riders

The Talktv debate also talked about those who kill people while riding a push bike/scooter, I think they said the maximum prison sentence was two years (I may be wrong) but the laws needed vast improvements.

This had been talked about a lot before but nothing happened.

AIBU proposes that all cyclists have number plates/easily identifiable markings, all have insurance, all have a bell and lights, and all wear a helmet and hi-vis jacket (This would in my judgment make many more riders more responsible for their actions and our roads/pavements safer for all)

The police need to be more proactive on e-scooter riders. However, as cyclists are almost impossible to identify, my proposal as above will aid the police and hopefully, modify the dangerous behaviours of those cyclists that are now regularly breaking the law, EG, travelling at more than the speed allowed, jumping red lights, putting pedestrians at risk on crossings and pavements.

This is my biggest bugbear. They think they can see where they are going but they can’t predict if you are going to step sideways to look in a shop window, for example, or bend down to do up your shoelace.

Our county council are looking at major road changes in our local area (on the road next to my house) that would have mixed pedestrian and cycle lanes. It feels like a recipe for disaster.

Yeah.

We can all cycle Putin into oblivion.

Why would it force people off their bikes and into cars? It would still be cheaper/healthier/often quicker to cycle.

Total rubbish, "it wont work" my left foot!!

They said catching those not wearing seatbelts will not work and then using mobile phones - yes thousands caught yearly and new advances in cctv catching even more of these law breakers

OF COURSE IT WILL Work like this

The pedestrians that have nearly been knocked over by a cycle rider may video/pic them as will many that have dash cams - simple as that really

So
Why are you and many others here that I'm guessing are cycle riders so anti-identification details bing attached to the cycle or hi-vis jacket?

This will change the entitled behaviour of many push bike riders that ATM are fearless because they know there is next to no chance of getting caught when they break the law

So, please, why are riders so anti-ID for cyclists??

I'm 100% certain no cycle rider can come up with the answer we already know why they don't want reg ID system to easily identify all of them

I ve already explained to you why, as have others, you also cannot back anything up with figures.

Fingers in your Ears, you re just not interested.

But again, how would you fund the changes and set up of a cyclists equivalent of the DVLA ?

Yes but that's the point. Right now there are a handful of criminal offences you can be charged with as a cyclist, with a lot of scope for the police to apply common sense and discretion.

If you're going to start a licensing system then you're going to need much more clarity on what counts as legal or illegal when cycling.

If you're going to do that then you're going to need to invest in cycling infrastructure a lot so cyclists aren't left winging it and potentially breaking the law in order to stay safe.

If you're going to do that, why not firm up legal responsibilities of other road users - make it a criminal offence not to look both ways when crossing the road, or not to look behind you before stepping sideways on a bike path. Or not to check your blind spot before turning. Or not to have a security camera to show up cyclists in hgv blind spots.

We won't do those things because they're disproportionate to the level of risk involved and would be almost impossible to enforce.

I don't cycle these days.

I'm against cycle ID because although it may sound like a good idea, the downsides (principally an increased barrier to entry for cycling, which reduces participation, which in turn reduces the benefits to riders' health and means less reduction in car use) massively outweigh the upsides.

I wouldn't necessarily be against mandatory ID for eBikes (perhaps in exchange for increasing the max speed of them from 15 to 20) because I think that people spending £1k+ on an eBike are unlikely to be put off by a registration requirement.

90% of motorists who flee the scene of an accident, are never brought to justice.
2 million motorists drive with no insurance and/or licence

So registration etc doesn't solve anything.

I don’t disagree with you generally. But common problems like cyclists jumping a red light, riding on both sides of a car, not ‘indicating’ a turn or a stop and going about in the dark without lights could all be prosecuted as careless or dangerous.

Just like the driver, the cyclist should obey the Highway Code, or cycle-specific code, or face prosecution.

I also agree about proportionate targeting of resource. It’s just that a mindset has developed in some cyclists’ minds that there are no rules for them, or at least a large dose of discretion for them. And that should attract some attention. Perhaps a mandatory test for use of the road/cycleways would be a good place to start.

One thing I absolutely would do is ban the carrying of children on bicycles and in bike trailers. Absolutely irresponsible.

I don’t disagree with you generally. But common problems like cyclists jumping a red light, riding on both sides of a car, not ‘indicating’ a turn or a stop and going about in the dark without lights could all be prosecuted as careless or dangerous

Filtering is allowed in the UK

Since when was not indicating been a criminal offence for a cyclist? or are you advocating bicycles have to have number plates, brake lights and indicators?

Cyclist don't tend to jump red lights as being hit by a car crossing on a Green leads to death.

Its up to the parent to decide what is irresponsible or not or are you victim blaming?

Your arguments are so ill thought out OP.

The real issue is that cyclists need to replace cars of which there are too many.

This thread is going round in circles but it’s been interesting to note the level of hate and how some, like you, think the quick fix is to stick a license plate on a hi viz😂
The real causes of death and injury on roads are actually cars, buses, lorries.

It's illegal to cycle on the path but because there's no deterrent they carry on. People should have their bikes confiscated or be fined or both and it would soon stop.

As for no lights in the dark it's pathetic can't be bothered to buy a pair of lights to save their life.

Again nothings done so they carry on.

One thing I absolutely would do is ban the carrying of children on bicycles and in bike trailers. Absolutely irresponsible

Why? Any stats to back up your claim?

I don't routinely jump red lights but say you're at a t-junction waiting to go ahead with traffic behind you. Traffic lights allowing traffic from the right, but there's no traffic there and you have a clear view. Arguably it's safer to start riding than set off with other traffic behind you, and preferable for the cars behind you too.

Ridig on both sides of a car - you're allowed to ride where you feel safe on the road.

Indicating - great idea unless you're going down a hill with lots of drains and potholes and taking your hand off the brake to indicate would impact your speed and stability.

Why is it irresponsible to have children on a bike or trailer? Children ride bikes themselves. Surely it's better than lots of extra cars on school run etc? The danger element comes from cars, not bikes...

As to cyclists' awareness of the law, yep - investment in cycling proficiency in schools and training for those who want it would be good. As would investment in cycle infrastructure. The national budget for this is about 20p.

It's not illegal to ride on the pavement. There's an offence of wilful riding on footpaths under Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835. What consistutes wilful riding is for the police to determine and they take into account factors such as safety of the road, presence of pedestrians on the path.

More dramatic cycling offences come under 1861 wanton or furious driving. They're laws that date back to the days of horses and carriages.

The Highway Code says you must not ride on the pavement but that doesn't make it illegal.

It's not black and white because it's sensible for the police to have discretion. If someone is cycling on an entirely empty pavement next to a dual carriageway with 70mph traffic, would you really prosecute because they weren't riding in with the HGVs?

You have not. Why on earth are the majority of cycle riders against having an easily identifiable ID on their bike or hi-vis??

Saying its "impractical" etc etc is a load of nonsense. Just ask the victims of cyclists who hit and run and why the police could not find them.

Sadly it will need a big event of cyclists knocking over a toddler, pregnant mum etc etc where the outcome of the accident is a worse-case scenario, and push bike rider rode off. Only then the media and the idiots in parliament may really push for number plates/IDs on cycle or better still on a Hi-vis jacket.

I bet you cycle ridders breaking the law would massively decrease if they had ID's as per my posts, but you know that along with the other here hence avoiding the question

I agree, cyclists and pedestrians are incompatible, it sounds like these changes are driven by someone who neither walks nor cycles!

🤦‍♀️

The offences are driving carelessly or dangerously. The Highway Code gives guidance on avoiding doing so.

A cyclist turning right should put their arm out, not just pull across the road. Please don’t tell me about one-armed cyclists.

Are you seriously telling me that cyclists don’t ride through red lights? Yeah, sure.

And victim blaming? That’s just obnoxious. Recklessly exposing children to danger is not something to be proud of.

Good afternoon

Another fantastic post here

If I may, before the nit pickers pick on you. I know and millions of others know what you are saying about rding on "pavements" but the pedantic will point out to you that an adult can ride on a pavement where permitted.

Indeed, having an easily readable ID on cycle rides will massively reduce law breaking

A famous cycle rider that goes around, near central London catching driver using mobiles and inappropriately turning right and rightly so reporting them to the police was once asked by a driver - "Why are you not reporting cyclists that make the illegal turn or jump red lights and riding through pedestrians on pavements and crossings..."" You know the answer!!

ID is impractical for reasons given umpteen times above. Bikes aren't cars. Their parts can be easily changed, they get nicked quite often, they can be ridden by anyone.

High vis is sensible in some situations, but why would you need it by law at all times? Say if it's a summer's day and bright light conditions. Or you're wearing a white dress anyway which shows up as well as high vis. Or you're out and your bag with the high vis gets nicked. Bikes have reflectors anyway that do the same job.

In a hit and run, as with cars, noting down a licence number is hard to do. Cyclists can sometimes be idiots but they don't just ride into people for the fun of it.

I'm sure the number of cycling offences would decrease if you required licensing and high vis, because the number of cyclists and the annual number of bike trips would reduce, resulting in more cars on the road and a higher death toll overall through accidents, pollution, knock-on effects of climate change.

Cycling is a public good. You need to think less stick, more carrot. Cycling training, better bike lanes, more people out on bikes. Not trying to put people off cycling because some teenage lads act like dickheads, as teenage lads have done since time immemorial.

I’m sorry, but the ‘safety’ excuse for red lights is nonsense. And even if it wasn’t you should still obey the red light.

If a car driver has cyclists on both sides they are put in an impossible position if something happens and they have to move either way. It’s v dangerous. But cyclists do it frequently.

Children in cargo bikes and trailers and so are a painful sight. So dangerous.

@DistingusedSocialCommentator you are talking total bollocks.

You have to have a licence to drive a car. You have to have insurance, you have to get your car tested every year to check it’s road worthy, you have to wear a seat belt. All cars have licence plates. Guess what, there are still crappy drivers out there, accidents still happen. It’s to do with the person, not the mode of transport.

Yes there are bad cyclists out there, but I’m guessing they’re probably bad drivers too and arseholes in general.

I’m a driver, pedestrian and cyclist. I am more in danger on my bike and do you know what from? Pedestrians. Yes there is more chance of serious injury or death if a car/van/lorry is involved but 9 times out of 10 it’s pedestrians that cause me problems.

99.9% of the time I do obey a red light when cycling. But the legal thing to do is not always the safest or most rational thing. In the situation I gave, jump red light = do your wobbly start without cars behind or beside you, green light = start up with some twat revving behind you and trying to get past straight away.

If you have bikes on either side of you, slow and they'll go in front of you and not be on both sides of you any more. I wonder if you know how it feels to be in a lane on a bike with cars and trucks on either side of you?

Your objection to children in trailers and cargo bikes is irrational. You're basically saying people should make it harder for you to kill their children, when the onus should be on you to protect them by driving safely.

Please stop the defeatest rant " Is is impractical£ - NO its NOT.
If we looked at everything like that nothing would get done and that is a fact

I'll tell you why many push bike riders don't want an ID visible to all report lawbreakers, exactly that. There is no other reason whatsoever, just ask the victims and near misses - just ask the drivers and pedestrians annd the lawful cycle riders the nuber of times they see bike riders break the rules and or nealy kncok someone over or actually do that.

Why do you get cycle riders reporting drivers using a mobile but drivers with dash cams not reporting the thousands jumping red lights, riding on pavements where they are not supposed to - YOU Know the Answer, FGS admit it!!