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.

The age of criminal responsibility is 12 - why should responsibility for the safety of others when cycling be any different ? If they kill someone in the manner you describe do you not think they deserve to be punished ? I would imagine that common sense would prevail where children are concerned and that each case would be decided on the individual circumstances.

I don’t think the intention is to make sure no one rides bikes on the roads, rather to address the growing number of powerful bicycles in use and the manner in which they are ridden. I don’t see anything wrong in updating the law so that cyclists who kill and injure if they don’t ride with due care and attention to other road users can be prosecuted to the same standard as motorists.

I don’t think anyone is talking about banning cyclists, just conferring more responsibility for the consequences of their actions on the road. Why so many seem to think this is somehow unfair is baffling.

Do a quick Google for "driver", "fatal crash" and "suspended sentence" then come back and tell us how that responsibility is going.

https://actionvisionzero.org/#:~:text=Action%20Vision%20Zero%20helps%20communities,between%20people%20and%20motor%20vehicles.

Vision zero aims to cut road deaths worldwide, its not bikes they're worried about

Well the offence of Jaywalking in the States seems to be pretty well implemented. I have family in California and they say that a citation for jaywalking means that the pedestrian has to produce some form of ID or they are taken into custody temporarily - even if it’s only sitting in a squad car until their ID can be verified and the citation served. I suppose how much of a deterrent it is depends on the resources available for enforcement. Possibly the thought that dangerous behaviour could result in a fine may be enough to make people think before acting.

Not the point. Citing the actions of motorists doesn’t excuse cyclists from similar behaviour.

Yes but they are given a penalty or convicted because they are identifiable

You're demanding action against the people who might hypothetically cause a couple of deaths in the future. I'm showing you the lack of action taken against the hundreds and thousands currently, actively causing deaths.

If that's not the point, then you are just lying about your intentions.

Age of criminal responsibility is just 10 years old... these kids will be subject to this stupid law, once a child is prosecuted, you can bet your life parents will not allow their kids a bicycle.

What on earth do you mean "growing number of powerful bicycles" ?

Cycles are human powered? or do you mean electric bikes? which are pedal assist and cannot do more than 15mph, otherwise they are classed as a motorbike.

ATM no one needs a licence to cycle, there is no test requirements, insurance, age restrictions nor is safety gear needed, i think if we want to make cyclists, inc children, face the full force of the law (as car drivers do) then all of these will have to be introduced too.

This is why its anti cycling, how can you jail a child when that child isn't able to comprehend the rules of the road? which is why the law puts age restrictions on driving a car...

Common sense? sorry but the law is the law, a child will be judged in exactly the same way as an adult.... so little johnny/jenny, late for school, riding along a path, hits Mrs Muggins collecting her pension, breaking her hip... little Johnny ends up in a Young offender institution, life ruined and comes out a hardened criminal... win win hey!

The logic of going down this legal route is that we will now need laws so that runners who recklessly run into Mrs Muggins will also be jailed too.....

Why not?

Good point!

And as mentioned upthread it’s nigh on impossible to prosecute a cyclist for riding under the influence because they can refuse to provide a breath, urine or blood sample and the refusal can’t be used in court. Why is that l wonder ?

Are you taking my ironic reference to the tattoos on holocaust victims literally, or are you really, really good at irony? I'm honestly not sure.

There is already some old offence of furious cycling I believe and people can and have been prosecuted under that.

I don’t see how speeding on its own can become an offence. Cars can be done for speeding as they legally have to have a speedo. Bikes don’t and it’s not possible to fit an accurately calibrated speedo to bikes. GPS units aren’t even accurate. Mine is often significantly incorrect due to trees or buildings and it’s a top of the range £300 Garmin on my bike.

however I’m sure if I caused injury to someone and it was deemed I was cycling dangerously (and speed could be part of that even if under a speed limit) then yes I could be prosecuted. Tori’s are currently coming up with media friendly bollocks while ignoring more pressing issues in the run up to an election

Yes this has been driven by Iain Duncan Smith, who also gave us UC and Brexit.

The aim of this law is about getting cyclists off the road in the longer term, whilst ignoring the deaths and injuries of cyclists caused by drivers, who in most cases escape jail if they kill a cyclist.

Cycles are human powered? or do you mean electric bikes? which are pedal assist and cannot do more than 15mph, otherwise they are classed as a motorbike.

Peloton style groups involving racing bikes, some with brake systems not intended for use on public roads because the stopping distances are greater. A member of one such group in a London park killed a pedestrian Witnesses described the group as head down, cycling furiously and well in excess of the 20mph speed limit in force.

I see Peleton groups regularly around the country lanes here and a cycling club in the village has been reported to police on numerous occasions for dangerous behaviour. Police are pretty much powerless to do anything meaningful even if offenders can be identified, because seemingly the laws applying to motorists don’t always apply to cyclists. If we’re going to allow powerful racing bikes onto the roads then l don’t see why the riders shouldn’t be subject to the same responsibilities as other road users.

Absolutely no such thing as a powerful racing bike (unless you're one of the conspiracy theorists about motor assisted cheating in the grand tours).

What are you on about?
Firstly, club group rides don’t usually ride in “pelotons” on the road (that’s not what a peloton is).
“Brake systems not intended for use on public roads”, brakes are designed to stop the bike, full stop. Bikes without brakes such as fixed wheel track bikes are not legal to ride on the road.
”Powerful racing bikes” - cycles are human powered. Even e-bikes are limited to 15.5 miles an hour when the power assistance is enabled (though can go faster when only pedal powered).

Quite, that statement made me laugh out loud!

Peloton style groups involving racing bikes, some with brake systems not intended for use on public roads because the stopping distances are greater

You're talking rubbish.

If you’re talking about fixed wheel bikes with no other brakes ie the type you’d compete on in a velodrome, practically no one uses them on the road, with the possible exception of some cycle couriers in city centres, but even they’ll have a front brake too.

I’d bet my house on the group cycling through your village are on bikes with normal front and rear brakes.

@Rosscameasdoody Now you are just making stuff up..... Bicycle brakes are in fact better than ever, with disk brakes being the norm for all road bicycles now.

This new law will apply to children riding around the park and to those on 1000cc powerful bicycles too....

Thats why its a very bad, ill thought through law.

Yes doubtless road traffic law needed amending but we should look at the benefits cycling and exercise in general bring not trying to ban bicycles from the roads (and this is exactly what this law will do) is very wrong and may well lead to children going to jail/criminal record.

When IDS says its not "anti cycling" you can bet this is the exact opposite of what he means.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/royal-parks-regents-park-cycling-strava-gps-b1157410.html

This is a debate about a tiny, tiny portion of law, applicable only when a cyclist actually kills someone, which is very rare.

So you’re saying that the lives of those three people taken by cyclists somehow mean less than those taken by motorists ?
I'm more concerned about 485 deaths than I am about 3 deaths. Each one is an individual tragedy, of course, but I care more about 485 individual tragedies than about 3 individual tragedies.

Just one example of which is that if a police officer suspects drink or drugs are involved and asks them for a breathalyser test, they are entitled to refuse and also to refuse a blood or urine test. That refusal can’t be used against them in court, effectively meaning that they can cycle under the influence and get away with it even if they cause an accident as a result.

That's bollocks. A Constable doesn't need to breathalyse to prove that someone was unfit to ride through drink or drugs.

Well said.

In addition, if you introduce unnecessary rules and regulations, you make people even less likely to commute by bike. Commuting by bicycle is a surprisingly effective way of preventing heart disease and stroke, due to the incidental exercise. Heart disease and stroke are leading causes of ill health and death.

Imagine how many lives we could save if we made transport by bike easy and appealing.

The age of criminal responsibility is 12 - why should responsibility for the safety of others when cycling be any different ? If they kill someone in the manner you describe do you not think they deserve to be punished ? I would imagine that common sense would prevail where children are concerned and that each case would be decided on the individual circumstances.

Nothing stopping the police from charging them with manslaughter if they can prove negligence - or even murder if they can prove intent.

Mind you, I've known of cases where a motorist was recorded shouting "I'm going to f*#&ing kill you" (so a pretty blatant statement of intent) and yet was only charged with "Driving without due care and attention" even though it was clearly attempted murder.

If you want to get away with murder, make it look like an RTA. Even with the small chance of getting caught, motorists always get away with a slap on the wrist anyway.