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.

It is over 75%, what can't you understand? (Do you want me to post the Daily Mirror link again??_
Of the 4000+ that voted the vast, massive majority agreed that
cyclcisits needed "number plates o bikes." IMHO, having the reg on a 5 quid hi-vis jacket does two things. First, the rider is more visible and that is a fact. Secondly, the reg/ID can be moved to one bike to another as many people have access to more than one bike.

Then there will be less people getting injured or scared out of their wits when an ignorant rider shoots past and or hits pedestrians as they step out of their home/shop or just walk along the pavement

Trust me, the serial law-breaking that we now have, many of these dangerous riders will take not that there is indeed a chance to get caught and banged to rights. Drivers with dashcams will then start doing their good work and reporting the lawbreakers. Over a few months, there will be a lot less riders that are flouting the law and putting others at risk

Along with the easily identifiable ID, and** insurance will become mandatory and at the same time, once these lawbreakers are stopped, if they have no lights/bell, fine them for that and points/ban on their licence if they have one or when they get one

The 5 quid isn't the actual cost though is it?

You seem determined to create your own weird reality, where you are right and everything you want will come to pass because "everyone" agrees with you. If you actually had any intelligence, you would be talking to your MP, or local road safety committee, or RoSPA, to start a proper campaign to make it a reality, but it's all a bunch of bollocks, so you are on a social media site berating people instead. What a surprise.

2 years ago going out of my front gate a bike being rode on the pathment (by a youth) knocked me down and I broke a wrist/fractured foot and multiple cuts and bruises etc. The police did not want to know..no one was charged as he just carried in riding his bike. If a car had done this and did not stop, it would be on the local news!

They may work in the wide streets of American cities but I have reservations about what their performance will be like on our narrow lanes. Will an autonomous vehicle know that it needs to back up to a passing space? Or will it just sit down and wait for the obstruction to remove itself? Could result in a stand-off if two of the things meet on a narrow road.

They may have a niche use as replacements for taxis but they'll never be practical for mass transit.

Op, if pedestrian safety is top of your agenda, it's cars that need more restrictions, given their higher rate of killing

Sigh. A survey of Mirror readers is not nationally representative. It’s a survey of those people only. That I can understand. 66% of Mirror readers are aged over 55 with the typical reader aged 60, compared to the general population which also includes non Mirror readers who are considerably younger, and likely to be more supportive of cyclists, it’s not a accurate survey of attitudes of the uk population as a whole. I'm not going to stoop to your level of rudeness but I suspect I might know a bit more than you do about how to get a representative sample that shows accurate results and I wouldn’t start with a Mirror readership as a reflection. I might do if I wanted a clickbaity article that would increase my advertising revenue and I worked for the Mirror.

you still have no evidence for serial law breaking. Mandatory insurance and points don’t stop speeding of drivers so why would it work better for cyclists? Are you implying they are more likely to be law abiding? And that’s even before we get to the proportionality of risk and cost as has been explained to you many times.

Another interesting fact for you since you’re obsessed by lights and hi-vis is that 79% of cyclists are hit during daylight hours in good conditions which is why a lot of cyclists -myself included- don’t bother with hi vis. Drivers who aren’t looking wouldn’t see you even if you were lit up like a Christmas tree.

Obviously cyclists should have working lights, at night or dim conditions, I don’t disagree with that. To be honest it would be pretty simple to just mandate bikes cannot be sold without lights.

Also points/ban on licence? What licence? A driving licence? Many cyclists will have one, but not all. And how’s it relevant? How can you put points on a licence for a offence that has nothing to do with what that licence is for? Now I know you’re not a very serious person. Cyclists have a right to use the road, drivers are there by permission precisely because of the increased risk they pose to other road users.

OP I’ve very rarely been that amused by this level of batshittery thinking from one person so well done you. Maybe you should do stand up?

75% of Daily Mirror readers. Hardly a representative sample of the country and certainly not 4,000 brain cells between them.

If you really want to reduce pedestrian deaths (and I doubt that is really your motivation, given that you've set up multiple threads with the common target being anyone who slows down your juggernaut) then you would support the same measures taken in the Netherlands, a country which has slashed its casualty figures since the 1970s. How did they do that? Have a game of Spot the Difference with the attached images.

Now, you didn't answer whether you support the default speed limit in built-up areas being reduced to 20mph...

And the car driver would have got away with it too. Hit and run drivers are rarely caught.

Im sorry that happened to you and of course it shouldn’t. You should be safe in the pavement. But you’re wrong it would be on the news if you were hit by a person driving a car. There’s someone killed or seriously injured every 16 minutes on our roads so the local news would be full of reports and not much else. In fact not all the deaths are reported. A fracture, whilst obviously painful wouldn’t even meet the criteria of serious injury so the level of injuries from vehicles is far more. And 12% of car accidents involve a hit and run.

I’m not minimising at all that it was undoubtedly traumatic and upsetting for you, and of course that young person should have stopped to see if you were ok, or offer help and at least apologise for riding around dangerously but saying it would be different if you were hit by a car just isn’t right.

I think they’re rather better than that. And they’re not even in general use yet.

I’m very sure that autonomous electric vehicles will be commonplace in 20 years time.

What’s not to like?

Have they tested one on a single-track country lane yet? For that matter there's the main street through my village - good luck there. And what if Russian hackers get in? At best you'd have scenes like in the Italian Job with total gridlock. Much better to have access to micro mobility with no dependence upon electronics.

Autonomous vehicles will have a niche use. You will not find city centres reopened to cars just because they drive themselves.

Trust me friend, if by fluke it was in favour of cycle riders, your tune would have been very different. Please do try harder to discredit a massive vote in a well known newspaper, lol .You really must try harder. The majority of people would agree with me and the link is proof.

You are being deliberately obtuse. You know people ride on pavements and the hit and rn of a pedestrian, a driver with number plates would have been a good chance they got caught. I'll help you - even if the car had false plates, forensics, DNA matches etc. OK

Often, those not convinced as per my OP - if and when they become victims of a hit and run rider, most would soon change their tune

The demand for plates and insurance couldn’t even reach 10,000 to be debated in parliament.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/604266

OP, if you feel so strongly about this, lobby your MP. “Debating” this on a parenting forum is not going to make an iota of difference.

It's less than 10% that get prosecuted

99% of pedestrian collision deaths involve a motorised vehicle. We need fewer cars and more bikes to save lives. Look at the bigger picture op.

We need more areas to be pedestrianised and additional cycle ways. Too many cars on the road.
More cycle schemes needed and heftier penalties for drivers who put pedestrians and cyclists at risk.

Lets face it .. convert roads to cycle ways then cyclists don’t need to use the pavement.

You're absolutely right OP. Number plates have completely solved dangerous driving. I'm sure it'll do exactly the same for those hundred of pedestrians killed by cyclists.

I have to agree that those cycle riders that go around videoing drivers breaking the rules, I'm with them 100%. I'd also love the chance as would millions of others to catch cyclists that get away scot-free when riding on pavements, riding through people on crossings and jumping red lights

I read this today - what do my buddies here think?

https://www.driving.co.uk/news/cyclist-faces-prosecution-after-reporting-driver-for-using-a-phone-behind-the-wheel/

It's simply too expensive to administer.

Cars and insurance and running costs are expensive, licensing is a relatively small cost in the grand scheme of things.

Bikes are cheap. The administrative time and cost of setting up and maintain a national system of registration and licensing would be non sensical.... How do you deal with children? And children's bikes? Bikes that are shared or sold or passed on.

At the end of the day almost 2000 people are killed in car accidents every year and almost 30,000 seriously injured, plus the cost of damage to vehicles and property makes car licensing and insurance worthwhile.

Less then 4 per year are killed by cyclists and fewer than 1000 suffer moderate or severe injuries, at those levels, the cost doesn't make sense.

How many drivers have you reported with your dashcam?

You can't argue with hard data (well you probably would try). Car drivers who fail to stop after an accident usually get away with it.

One study in England and Wales found that nearly 90% of these accidents are unsolved
https://www.farrin.com/blog/shocking-facts-about-hit-and-run-crashes/

A poll of Daily Mirror readers proves nothing.

(well it proves that they're a bunch of uneducated fuckwits but nothing we didn’t already know)

So despite video and there being number plates matey got nothing, not even points? What makes you think they'd take dangerous cycling seriously when they choose not to prosecute despite everything being there on a plate for them?