Perhaps complete nonsense was a bit harsh. But the punishment available (of several) is a discretionary disqualification which I would suggest is only used for repeat offenders.
UT50 aggravated taking of a vehicle - points
UT20 - Stealing Or Attempting To Steal A Vehicle - Ban,
UT30 - Going Equipped For Stealing Or Taking A Vehicle - Ban,
Not actually anything to do with the pedal cycle though in fairness.
Wht if you use the bike as a weapon or are using the bike when you're stealing a car? Pretty much like I said initially.
If they share the *rights* to the road, they share the *responsibilities*. Stopping at a red light is one of those. Opting in and out moment by moment as it suits isn't on.
Not quite as simple as that.
It was touched on earlier in the thread that our roads are not designed to cater for cyclists. Whether the laws apply to us or not, almost all traffic calming measures were put in place to control motorised vehicles. Cyclists have more in common with pedestrians than the two ton, fast moving Meccano© sets they share the road with.
Cyclists are expected to ride in the gutter wherever possible, and give way to bigger machinery on the approach to pinch points, yet frowned upon when they cautiously wheel through a red light.
The trouble with equal rights, and more importantly equal rules, is that it couldn't be more unequal when those rules were designed to cater for everyones' needs but yours.
And this is one of the reasons I'm not dead against RLJing. In instances of pedestrians being made to feel unsafe (and sometimes hurt), I can agree completely...there's some cheb ends out there, and not just on the road, I see it on trails too (I can imagine what the big city is like on a Monday morning!). Something needs to be done about that. But the moment you say, 'OK, you're right, that's completely wrong'. You are saying that it's OK to be bound by a set of rules that are perhaps to the detriment of your own welfare. And by chastising others for it, you are strengthening the opinion that we share the same 'rights to the road' and the same 'responsibilities'. The same rules. Coming from a cyclist, that is taken as confirmation. All those guys are selfish p****s, an unfathomably scummy form of man. Which reflects back on yourself, because you'll be binding yourself to a set of rules that will never work.
It needs to be understood that the needs of those navigating high powered vehicles and those pedalling bikes are very different.
Once we can get to a point where we're thinking, 'hang on, let's stop this petty slap on the wrist s**t and work out how we can all get along together', then we can start making progress.
Cyclists are expected to ride in the gutter wherever possible, and give way to bigger machinery on the approach to pinch points, yet frowned upon when they cautiously wheel through a red light.
No - they are not.
A cyclist can not be given points on his licence for a red light. A red light is contrary to section 36 of the RTA 1988.
The penalties are as per schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. This sets out for all traffic offences the method of prosecution, level of fines, and whether disqualification and endorsement apply.
For RTA 1988 S36 disqualification/endorsment only apply to offences
committed in respect of a motor vehicle
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/schedule/2
Anybody who got points on their driving licence for a cycling offence had a crap lawyer.
No - they are not.
I speak of the masses. Not of the law.
Glupton the legislation makes no mention of a bike. I could say you get points on your licence for commiting the offence of going equipped wearing a green hat, it's irrelevant. You stated that riding a bike whilst going equipped to steal meant you could get points on your licence. Insinuating that riding the bike is part of the offence. It isn't. Therefore not pretty much like you said. Sorry. And going equipped with a bike or a bike as an intended weapon??? Good luck proving that in court.
WUNUNDRED!!!!
Kudos Druidh - possibly the best post of the thread ;).
Yawn.
I agree with butcher. I would also add the lights controlled by sensors that dont go off for bikes. My road club has a very strict set of guidlines re red lights which is fair enough. But the sight of 15 people stopped at red lights that wouldnt change for 5-10 mins was one of the funniest things i've see. Some even suggested turning round. I also used to live down a road that had lights on a sensor. It had no exit at one end( unless you wanted to swim the Thames) and a red light that wouldnt change till a car came at the other. What should i have done?
I commuted in London for years on a bike. I always hopped off and pushed across the road as a pedestrian if there was a red where I clearly didn't need to stop. Then at the other side hopped back on and rode off. Seemed a sensible solution, to me anyway.
Surely as a cyclist he doesn't pay road tax so can ignore all road signs?
I am sure i read something like that on the internet once
And by chastising others for it, you are strengthening the opinion that we share the same 'rights to the road' and the same 'responsibilities'
But the fact remains that the rights and responsibilities ARE the same.
EDIT:
Well the rights are different (cyclists don't need a license) but teh responsibilities to obey red lights, road markings, signs, etc are the same
I went through loads of red lights in my car yesterday, will I have my pushbikes taken off me?
andymc06 - MemberYou can get a £30 fine (non-endorsable) on a pedal cycle for failing to comply with a traffic sign (including lights).
Yeah, I noticed.
Last night, over my 20-mile commute from Wapping to Leatherhead, I stopped at every single red light. I noticed that it didn't take any longer to do the distance than when I was RLJ-ing to try and make it quicker...
