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.

Thank you, but no.

If we lived in Holland or whatever its called these days, I may have considered it. However, not in London as many cyclists have a bad name just like BMW drivers, so not for me.

@DistingusedSocialCommentator BMW drivers aren’t that bad. They are not even in the top 3 cars involved in crashes. Guess what is though?
https://www.driving.org/new-research-reveals-the-cars-involved-in-the-most-crashes-in-the-uk/

You don't need a car in Zone 3. It's only 15 miles across - quicker by public transport than by car and you can use a bicycle for the first/last mile. Much as paramedics use bicycles for a rapid response in city centres, home help carers can get between clients faster by bike than by car. Adaptive cycles exist for those who need the assistance.

Yes, we all know that you mean:

"I pay a small amount of money per year and therefore I feel entitled to sole use of the road without bicycles pedestrians or horses getting in my way"

Yeah, we've seen that attitude many times.

Interesting to observe that cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders all have a right to use the roads, while drivers are merely granted a license which can be revoked.

Cycling, walking and riding all pre date driving as well of course, a fact that drivers with their "roads were built for cars" nonsense sometime need reminding of.

Ironically the people who first campaigned for property finished roads were cyclists, before drivers were even around.

Drivers were originally seen as an anti social menance making the steets dangerous for everyone else and disrupting the public and social life that used to happen in the streets. There was a strong public desire to limit them. The US car industry ran a heavy propaganda campaign to persuade the public that it was up to walkers and riders to get out of drivers' way, a particularly nasty and cynical message serving only the interests of the newly emergung car industry.

Indeed, driving a vehicle causes a build-up of stress which often results in road rage.
https://www.nationwidevehiclecontracts.co.uk/blog/the-impact-of-stress-on-your-driving-performance

Exercise on the other hand is a great way to de-stress
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/research-projects/2023/jul/journeys-walking-and-cycling-improve-physical-and-mental-health-across-life-course

The term "jaywalker" was popularised by them - calling someone a "jay" was a bit like calling them a "hick" or a "redneck"

A day late for International Women's Day but never mind:

"I think [the bicycle] has done more to emancipate women than any one thing in the world. I rejoice every time I see a woman ride by on a bike. It gives her a feeling of self-reliance and independence the moment she takes her seat; and away she goes, the picture of untrammelled womanhood."
Susan B. Anthony, American civil rights campaigner, 1896

Agree, it can be. But cycling access is a gendered issue. Women likely to be poorer and less access to a car if the household owns one. Women likely to have kids with them, likely to do shorter, local chained trips- pick up kids, pop to shop, drop and collect from activities, which are all perfect for doing by bike but only if safe to do so.

Number one reason women don’t cycle is safety concerns which limits their freedom. Particularly women without access to other means of transport.

Better attitudes towards cyclists, safer behaviour and infrastructure would make a huge difference to women, their health and mobility and freedom.

https://theconversation.com/from-walking-to-cycling-how-we-get-around-a-city-is-a-gender-equality-issue-new-research-175014

I quite agree. In the Netherlands everyone (young and old, male and female, rich and poor) cycles local journeys. Because it is safe to do so.

In the UK, the poorest people cannot afford a car. If a family has one car it will usually be used by the man. Young people can't drive and many old people probably shouldn't. But they can't keep themselves mobile by riding a bicycle because there are too many lunatics in Range Rovers (thinking of no one in particular - cough, cough) who make it unsafe for them. Only the boldest (fit men) dare use them.

By providing safe, segregated infrastructure like the Netherlands has, we grant freedom to marginalised groups.

Incidentally I'm in London now. Random traffic survey: two Teslas, multiple BMWs and a Porsche joining the black cabs and red buses. Oh, and a Mini Cooper being driven on the wrong side of the street and parked in a space supposed to be reserved for taxis.

Which of those does the OP think the care workers of London are using? My money is on the buses.

I give more than the legal clearance to the cyclists I overtake and make sure they are safe, but when a cyclists whips past the inside and clips your wing mirror when you are waiting in traffic that’s seemingly fair game

I don't like filtering, I think if a cyclist wants to pass you they should have to go round the outside, not the inside. But the law doesn't agree with me. As for clipping your wing mirror do they actually damage it?

Also agree that this is an equality issue and providing for safe cycling helps everyone, including the most marginalised.

@DistingusedSocialCommentator I'm going to hazard a guess that the reason you are refusing to cycle has nothing to do with the poor reputation that cyclists have but everything to do with the fact that you are fully aware that cyclists are very vulnerable on the road because of arrogant, dangerous drivers.

As I suggested earlier, why don't you commit to cycling all journeys of less that 2 miles for the next month and then come back and update us.

I don't like filtering, I think if a cyclist wants to pass you they should have to go round the outside, not the inside

Strongly disagree. Apart from putting the already exposed cyclists into an even more vulnerable position, it doesn’t make sense practically. As the flow of traffic moves off, cyclists would have to return to the left hand side of the lane in reality, crossing in front of the faster moving cars. There’s nothing wrong with filtering up the inside if done carefully and considerately.

Wrong and no!

Not forgetting the Mercs and a Range Rover. Yeah, the people driving around London are all nurses and care workers rather than rich twats too conceited to use the tube...

The purpose of filtering is to keep traffic moving and stop total gridlock.

As bikes whether motorbikes, mopeds or bicycles are all small enough to filter around large vehicles they are allowed to do so.

Its also safer for many 2 wheeled vehicles to be at the front of the queue, or they risk being close passed by other vehicles, this also why many junctions have a separate "box" for cyclists to be in.... though usually a car stops in it!!!

On hitting a wing mirror, its actually quite hard to do (at any speed likely to do damage) as the bit that will hit the mirror, is the handle bar and thats means loss of steering and/or smack you hand on something hard.

Still waiting for even an approx idea of the costs of his ideas.... @DistingusedSocialCommentator

You tell others so "do your research", and obviously you'd never in a million years be a massive hypocrite, so can you please hare with us us the staff number to car staff car parking space ratio of hospitals?

It'll be a pretty important figure and one of the first key pieces of research in backing up your assertion that full staff car parks mean most staff drive.

Whoops, one edit wasn't sufficient and I'm too late for a second, "hare with us us" should clearly be "share with us"

Hello

Goolge it or just ask posters that live in London what happens if they try to find a parking space at a London hospital if they arrive about 10am
Ask them how much of the space is dedicated to "staff car parks." You have a choice, please utilise it.

Hope that helps.

I didn't make the claim about staff car parks, you did. Evidently without doing the research you insist others do.

Now you are being delibertly obtuse.
You asked a question when you full well knew there was no recent research on that subject.
I tried to help you by directing you to Google and ask people that have had to visit hospitals in London and the parking woes and and how much of the parking spaces are dedicated to hospital staff. You know what I said is true. You know there is no such research at the moment because is blindly clear about the car parks situation and you come back with a half baked response.

I'm not sure why people are so anti being easily identified when riding a bike, can you help?

How would you catch a cyclist who knocked you over on the pavement as you walked out of your front gate and rode off into the sunset even when you had other people with you? What info would you supply the police if you was to report it - would your recall the registration number on their bike or hi-vis, or would they not have one.

No, we’re genuinely laughing at them - and by extension, you.

Good for you earning early retirement; I’m strangely comforted that you are out of the workforce and can’t influence company policy anymore than you can influence government policy.

Early in the thread you used newspaper polls to suggest the majority of people were on your side. People pointed out inherent bias, which you ignored because you believe in the veracity and representative nature of polls. With that in mind, I’m heartened to see the Mumsnet poll is showing that you are, indeed, being unreasonable.

I would be fine having some way of being identified on my bike, just as I am on my motorcycle and in my car.

In fact, my bike has a custom paint job that makes it instantly recognisable and entirely unique; I often have people recognise me or tell me they knew I was at such & such place because they saw it tied up outside.

What I’m struggling with, as most on this thread are, is how such a scheme like this works practically.

OP, as you are ‘educated to a high enough standard’ to understand these things, could you possibly take us through it, step by step?

I’m particularly interested in how it is to be funded. We’ll need a new department to facilitate it. Is this coming out of central taxation like the DVLA funding? Will we be increasing taxes to cover this? Or removing funding from something else? Adult social care? Education? NHS? Defence?

Or if it’s to be paid for by the individual, with a direct link between taxation and cost, I assume we will be making the same direct link for motorised vehicles? Currently that also comes from general taxation, but in the new system it would mean motorists paying proportionally to their vehicles’ cost.

Of course, this means larger and/or more polluting vehicles paying much more, which presumably you are in favour of?

Really excited to read through your proposals. I may have questions, so can’t promise this’ll be the last word.