[Closed] The law is the law....

But while its a silly one there is a perception issue, when they next do stopping motorists for whatever is the hot topic of the week, and they get the "why don't you go getting all the horrid nasty cyclists instead of punishing decent [speeding/negligent/red light running] motorists" they can say - we did, look. I don't like it, but it is the world they have to operate in, even more so now we have elected police commissioners.

I'll give a massive +1 to speed limits, my town has a 20, and I reckon a trap would catch more people at 30+ than they could effectively process.

when they next do stopping motorists for whatever is the hot topic of the week, and they get the "why don't you go getting all the horrid nasty cyclists instead of punishing decent [speeding/negligent/red light running] motorists" they can say - we did, look

But there we have the problem. As has come up through this thread the danger comes overwhelmingly from motor vehicles yet the enforcement action is disproportionately aimed at cyclists.

The answer to that question should not be "we did, look" it should be "because they don't kill or injure anyone and you do so we are focusing our efforts where they make the biggest difference to public safety"

Why is a 30mph limit not a limit that's enforced at 30? Why should 40mph be acceptable? Slower speeds make a huge difference to survivability when collisions occur.

But they do try to enforce it. Speeding tickets are given out all the time.

See my follow on point about the politicisation of policing. I don't like it, I think its insane, I think the police should decide what is worthy of attention, and also focus on all things all the time. As opposed to having a crime of the week.

This is my first post so hi everyone its a bit of a hot topic for a first post but Ive been lurking on the forum for ages and it spurred me to sign up to comment.

I live in cambridge and have done all my life .I cycle and I drive around the city everyday and I have never visited a city anywhere with worse cyclists even the tuc tuc drivers in bangkok have nothing on some of these guys. ive seen kids cycle down the centre of busy roads in the dark with no lights, women with children on the back of there bikes with no lights, people cycling down streets on the wrong side of the road two abreast and alot of other offences and its not once in a while its everyday.imo they needed this crackdown and I hope it continues its hard enough for cyclists in citys without these idiots giving us a bad name.....

In an ideal world the police would be sufficiently resourced to catch and convict all Road traffic law transgressors and then "the I won't comply with the law until every single bad motorists are caught" arguments would be pointless.

The fact is poor driving regularly happens and doesn't get detected or stopped, how is that an excuse for RLJing or T-Boning peds?

Ride like a Christian and stay within the law and you've got the "moral high ground" by default. Everyone caught in Cambridge was breaking the law and fined accordingly, what's wrong with that?

You can't honestly be defending traffic offences just because they are carried out by someone on a bicycle as opposed to a motorist?

Just got sent notification of [url= http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/index.aspx?articleid=10840 ]this[/url] .

Likewise, should they say where there will cameras? So people are more careful not to get caught, and as a result maybe speed less, or should they just put them places and do people (quite possibly me, I'm sometimes a little naughty on NSL roads)

But they do try to enforce it. Speeding tickets are given out all the time.

Not enough for it to be a deterrent. Likewise mobile phone use. Just look at driver behaiviour - why all those brake lights at (ridiculously visible) speed cameras? because all those vehicles are speeding on either side. If you want to enforce limits you make the cameras invisible and move them regularly. Theres a simple way to avoid fines - limit your speed. If you're unable to do that by yourself get some technology to help you.

There are over [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8833796/Carry-on-driving-for-half-of-drivers-with-12-points-on-licence.html ]10,000 drivers with in excess of 12 points[/url] who are still driving. Fines are insultingly low - a £60 fixed penalty? That doesn't even pay for a tank of fuel in most cars.

Cycling campaigners insist the popular perceptions of rampaging cyclists are not supported by statistical evidence. According to the Department for Transport (DfT), in 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available, no pedestrians were killed in Great Britain by cyclists, but 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles out of a total of 2,222 road fatalities.

Indeed, bike riders insist it is they who are vulnerable. Of the 13,272 collisions between cycles and cars in 2008, 52 cyclists died but no drivers were killed.

From 2006 to 2010 [from Office for National Statistics] there was an amazing 18 incidents of pedestrians struck by a cyclist on a pavement in the same period there was over a 1000 struck by cars whilst on the pavement.

Maybe it should be against the law for cars to drive on the pavement ?

£60 fixed penalty? That doesn't even pay for a tank of fuel in most cars.

You are quite right

Fuel is FAR too expensive.

From 2006 to 2010 [from Office for National Statistics] there was an amazing 18 incidents of pedestrians struck by a cyclist on a pavement in the same period there was over a 1000 struck by cars whilst on the pavement.

Given what in my head seems the likely proportion of urban miles driven to urban miles cycled [more than 1000:1], 18 actually seems quite high to me. Also I doubt all cycle incidents were reported. I probably wouldn't bother unless someone was hospitalised, whereas I would with a car even if everyone was fine.

The problem with cycling, is also the great thing about cycling. Anyone can get on a bike. The worst stuff I saw around Leeds was split between lycra clad hardcore elite made a point of passing me nothing will stop me, types - and people in normal clothes [jeans often under the arse], with their seat too low, in a low gear, no helmet, no stability wiggling about all over the place and the drive chain squealing its rusty self to bits i.e. not what I [and I suspect many here] would describe as a cyclist.

That's a worrying line to go down though as it leads towards licencing of some kind which I am dead against.

It's about allocation of limited resources innit 😉 whilst cycling irresponsibly might be annoying, it 's mostly harmless ...... I'd rather see police budgets spent on things that are really dangerous like car drivers or crimes that have real victims like burglary.

Thing is, almost all the time a bad cyclist is only a danger to themselves. A bad driver is a danger to everyone around them.

I have a philosophical problem with laws that only exist to protect people from themselves, but that's not the point here - the point is that scarce police resources are being used to target cyclists instead of car drivers for PR reasons.

+1 and it's rather sad that on a cycling forum, this is lost on a lot of the posters.

Not enough for it to be a deterrent.

You can't honestly be defending traffic offences just because they are carried out by someone on a bicycle as opposed to a motorist?

I'm not defending dangerous activity because it takes place on a bicycle. I'm saying that the road network is so poorly engineered for use by cyclists that it is sometimes safer to ignore the traffic regulations if you are using a bike. This is exacerbated by the failure to adequately address traffic offences committed by motorists which, in almost all cases, are an order of magnitude different in terms of the danger they cause.

I think it's questionable whether a lot of these traffic offences should even apply to cyclists. In many ways cyclists have a lot more in common with pedestrians than they do with motorists - certainly in terms of kinetic energy in the event of a collision. Fat bloke running vs child on bike? Must be about the same.

We don't have a 'jay walking' law in the country for pedestrians and the same approach could apply to cyclists. Why shouldn't it be OK for a cyclist to turn left on a red light, or cross a clear junction against the lights, or roll through a light controlled pedestrian crossing when the peds crossed before the lights changed because the delay was set ridiculously long in favour of motor traffic? We need to control motor vehicles more rigidly because of the speeds, the implications when something goes wrong and because they would be incapable of negotiating the junctions when busy without some management. That's not the case for cyclists.

I've been commuting in London for a long while and I go through phases of saint like adherence of the rules of the road and times when I take a more liberal interpretation. Right now I'm sick of having to fight for safe space on the road. I'm sick of motorists pushing past dangerously close to get to the back of a stationary queue they can already see, I'm sick of motorists accelerating towards me on a single lane 'quiet back route' thinking they can bully me out of the way, I'm sick of people revving their engine on my back wheel when I take the lane because I don't consider the lane wide enough for them to safely pass. I'm sick of reaching an ASL to find it filled with cars and motorbikes.

RLJing is interesting. Because car drivers do it all the time. I doubt it's just Glasgow, but almost every traffic light has several people sneaking through on amber and very often one on red.

When a cyclist does it, it's more obvious because cyclists aren't so common.

The fundamental problem is that motoring offences are so common that they've ceased to be seen as offences in the eyes of the public - and more worryingly in the eyes of the police.

Also I doubt all cycle incidents were reported. I probably wouldn't bother unless someone was hospitalised, whereas I would with a car even if everyone was fine.

That's also true of a great number of minor incidents between bikes and cars. Knocked off by a car with only cuts and bruises and the temptation is not to report it since the police make it such a long winded process and are extremely unlikely to do anything about it.

That's also true of a great number of minor incidents between bikes and cars.

Indeed. If I reported every incident of dangerous driving I saw every week, I'd never get anything else done.

RLJing is interesting. Because car drivers do it all the time. I doubt it's just Glasgow, but almost every traffic light has several people sneaking through on amber and very often one on red.

Absolutely. Cars doing it pisses me off too.

but doesn't generate news stories in the national press

That's also true of a great number of minor incidents between bikes and cars. Knocked off by a car with only cuts and bruises and the temptation is not to report it since the police make it such a long winded process and are extremely unlikely to do anything about it.

True, can't argue with that one, done it myself, I took pity on them. Were genuinely mortified by what had happened and it was a little bit my fault too.

but doesn't generate news stories in the national press

but doesn't generate news stories in the national press

The Cambridge News is not "the National Press"

It's a Local newspaper reporting what's happened recently in the Local area.

There was a rash of articles after the IAM's survey last year including [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/9272455/57-per-cent-of-cyclists-have-jumped-a-red-light.html ]this [/url]
but fairly regular before that such as [url= http://www.****/news/article-1226245/Theres-stopping-lycra-lout-cyclists-prosecutions-running-red-lights-plummets.html ]this[/url]

[url= http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/have-daily-mail-evening-standard.html ]Have the Daily Mail & Evening Standard published a fake article about cyclist road behaviour to call for compulsory cycle licences
[/url]

[url= http://www.****/debate/article-2242003/Arrogant-abusive-oh-smug--cyclists-think-theyre-law.html ]Arrogant, abusive and oh-so smug – why do so many cyclists think they’re above the law?[/url]

For reference -

[url= http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/the-terrible-journalists-guide-to-writing-an-article-about-bicycles/ ]The terrible journalist’s guide to writing an article about bicycles[/url]

unklehomered - Member

Given what in my head seems the likely proportion of urban miles driven to urban miles cycled [more than 1000:1], 18 actually seems quite high to me. Also I doubt all cycle incidents were reported. I probably wouldn't bother unless someone was hospitalised, whereas I would with a car even if everyone was fine.

Those are Serious injuries/Deaths the dept doesnt give just deaths.

I drove to work yesterday [2 miles] and saw 0 cyclists and quite a few cars. 5 of which were commiting traffic offences. most serious being going through a red light. Other 4 were crossing double white lines, failing to stop at a pedestrian crossing and 2 parking on pavements.

Maybe its time to prioritize, maybe take a leaf from Holland or Belgiums traffic policy on bikes and cycling ?

All in favour of that, but the country we live in means that's a long way off, and idealism won't get us anywhere, certainly not in the short term.

If the cyclist who keeps nearly hitting Melanie Phillips uses this forum can I ask why you haven't yet managed it? Is she surprisingly nimble? Maybe a fatty bike would increase your chances? Or some type of jousting pole, modded Mad Max style?

simons_nicolai-uk - Member

Car owners seem to get very protective of their cars - I've been screamed at - 'don't you dare touch my f&&&ing car' - when I've slapped a panel of a car that's been about to sideswipe me.

If you've got time to slap a car, you've got time to brake out of danger.

Stop being a prick. 💡

Dales_rider - Member

I drove to work yesterday [2 miles] and saw 0 cyclists and quite a few cars. 5 of which were commiting traffic offences. most serious being going through a red light. Other 4 were crossing double white lines, failing to stop at a pedestrian crossing and 2 parking on pavements.

It is not always illegal to cross solid white lines, and parking on the pavement is not in itself illegal for most of the UK, not that I'm defending the actions of the motorists that I didn't witness, of course.

(2 mile car journey? Shame on you!)
😛

If you've got time to slap a car, you've got time to brake out of danger.

So cyclists should quietly and unobtrusively get out of the way?

boxbuster - Member

I live in Cambridge, there are loads of reckless cyclists and even as someone who cycles everyday and doesn't really get stressed they often manage to wind me up.

Would you say it has (relatively) recently got worse?
I'm sure I've noticed an increase in fixed gear fashion victims weaving between peds crossing the road, running reds and generally exhibiting shit, selfish road use.

bencooper - Member

So cyclists should quietly and unobtrusively get out of the way?

Two courses of action:

1. Remove yourself from danger.
2. Don't remove yourself from danger.

Why do so many cyclists who constantly complain about car drivers being dangerous pick option 2?
Do they want to avoid danger or not?
It would appear that being a self righteous prick is more important than their own safety.

The last incident I had was a bus driver pulling out on me.
Did I slap the side of the bus?
No.
Because the safest thing for me to do at that time was remove myself from the area of possible conflict, which I did.

Safe road use isn't ****ing rocket science.

While you have a point sbob, merely surrendering the road everytime doesn't alert the driver to the fact he might nearly have killed someone, and reinforces the notion they have somekind of supremacy over cyclists. If I did something which a cyclist found threatening, inimidating or dangerous, I would want to know about it. And lets be honest no matter what the Melanie Phillips of this world might say, a dingding on a handle bar bell isn't going to achieve that.

Mr Agreeable - Member

It is not necessary to be an apologist for red light jumping or pavement riding cyclists to point out that the risks they pose are many orders of magnitude less than the risks to pedestrians and cyclists from poorly controlled motor vehicles

Unfortunately that opens the door for antagonists like me to point out that speeding is an incredibly minor cause of accidents, even though I don't, of course, advocate speeding, nor partake in excesses of the speed limit myself. 😀

It is not always illegal to cross solid white lines, and parking on the pavement is not in itself illegal for most of the UK, not that I'm defending the actions of the motorists that I didn't witness, of course.

(2 mile car journey? Shame on you!)

It is when you are not overtaking anything

"Rule 218 of the Highway Code says: "Do not park partially or wholly on the pavement unless signs permit it".

If there are any restrictions, e.g. yellow line, then you cannot park on the pavement.
Where there are no other parking restrictions then a sign should say that you are not allowed to park on the pavement/grass verge.
Within London it is banned everywhere unless there is a sign permitting parking on the pavement or grass verge.

Vehicles parked on pavements can create a hazard:

To pedestrians by causing an obstruction that may result in them having to step off the pavement into the carriageway, thus putting themselves in danger.
By restricting the width of the pavement and making it difficult for someone with a pushchair or wheelchair to pass safely - again this person may have to enter the carriageway to avoid the obstruction.
Due to the damage caused by driving on and off the pavement - broken flags, potholes, etc.

Illegally parked vehicles cost the City Council thousands of pounds a year in damaged paving and damaged grass verges. It can also create serious problems for blind, disabled and older people."

Finishing work [after 10 hour shift] at 00:40 one does not always fancy the ride home, especially in the rain

unklehomered - Member

While you have a point sbob, merely surrendering the road everytime doesn't alert the driver to the fact he might nearly have killed someone, and reinforces the notion they have somekind of supremacy over cyclists. If I did something which a cyclist found threatening, inimidating or dangerous, I would want to know about it.

Which is why I boarded the bus (with bike) further down the road to remonstrate with the driver, once it was safe to do so. 😆

While this doesn't directly relate to the cyclists in Cambridge, I wonder if these panel meetings have anything to do with it:

http://www.cambs.police.uk/myneighbourhood/priorities.asp?teamcode=222

as I understand it, there is a meeting with local Police, council & members of the public where people can air their views.....
I think then that the local policing teams have to commit a certain amount of time to tackling these crimes, as they have been bought up as concerns by members of the public...

I am pretty sure that complaints about cyclists would be fairly high up the agenda in cambridge (rightly or wrongly when looking at all the other motoring stuff mentioned above).

Anyway - back to the F1 Quali.....

Dales_rider - Member

It is when you are not overtaking anything

No it isn't. 😀

You really didn't need to justify using your car to get to work, you know.
It's ok, it's your choice. 🙂

stumpy01 - Member

Anyway - back to the F1 Quali.....

Fell asleep before he even finished the sentence. 😉

speeding is an incredibly minor cause of accidents

As statements pulled out of thin air go, that's up there with the best of them.

Mr Agreeable - Member

As statements pulled out of thin air go, that's up there with the best of them.

4% of accidents have speed in excess of limit as primary cause.
You can bump that up to about 14% if you're only looking at fatals.

Government stats, look them up whilst you are looking up sources for your claims, as I'm sure you didn't pull them out of thin air.

How many involve speeding vehicles? It may not be the primary cause, but it is always going to increase the risk of injury.

You can bump that up to about 14% if you're only looking at fatals.

So with a quick bit of Googling you've found a stat which says that 1 in 8 fatal accidents are caused by speeding. *slow clap*

I've linked to my sources, not my fault you can't be arsed to read them.

If you've got time to slap a car, you've got time to brake out of danger.

Stop being a prick

Thanks. I think the prick was the guy who undertook me in slow moving traffic, pulled alongside, then proceeded to move sideways into the space I was occupying.

Mr Agreeable - Member

So with a quick bit of Googling you've found a stat which says that 1 in 8 fatal accidents are caused by speeding. *slow clap*

No, after looking at government statistics, I have seen that speed in excess of the limit is the primary cause of less than 4% of accidents.

[url= http://www.****/news/article-1061808/Speeding-drivers-cause-3-car-accidents-figures-reveal.html ]Here's[/url] a link for you.

Like I said, a minor cause of accidents.
I trust you will now retract your statement which is shown to be in error, assuming it was made in error and you're not a weasly maggot of a cowardly liar, which I'm sure you're not. *coffee bean shake*