Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Millennie Al
After Pie
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by Millennie Al » Tue Aug 09, 2022 12:31 am

lpm wrote:
Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:31 pm
Anti-cyclist prejudice is widespread for a number of reasons:

- stupid ignorance
- drivers being slowed
- people observing cyclists break rules
- false belief that no laws exist

Replacing archaic law with modern law that's "proportionate, effective and well-calibrated", in Ivan's words, would reduce the prejudice caused by the third and fourth of these.
Ignorance is alleviated by education. Drivers would be slowed less by providing more road space for overtaking. People observing cyclists breaking rules would be helped by enforcement of the rules. And a false belief (which contradicts the previous point as people cannot observe cyclists break rules if they think there are no rules) is addressed by education.

None of these need new laws. Laws do prevent neither stupidity nor ignorance. Laws do not prevent drivers being slowed unless they grant drivers priority and require cyclists to keep out of the way. Laws do not prevent people seeing existing rules being broken. And laws do not address false belief except to the extent that introducing new laws may have a side effect of generating publicity - though it would also tend to reinforce the false belief that there were no laws previously.

Furthermore, road traffic regulations are a very dangerous area of law. That's where you get a lot of absolute offences - those which you commit even f you are unaware of doing anything wrong and which are unjust.

And to the extent that you wish to encourage cycling, imposing more rules on cyclists is certainly not going to help.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:31 am

Should there be bicycle registration numbers? Would help with identification of miscreants.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by WFJ » Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:41 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:31 am
Should there be bicycle registration numbers? Would help with identification of miscreants.
That does nothing to prevent the spate of drivers being scared by people riding stolen bicycles too fast downhill. Forehead ID number tattoos would work better than registration numbers for bikes. In the UK the NI number system could be a suitable option.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by lpm » Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:51 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Tue Aug 09, 2022 12:31 am
And to the extent that you wish to encourage cycling, imposing more rules on cyclists is certainly not going to help.
I dispute this. It will help. Casual and less confident cyclists will benefit. Nobody's going to say "I'm not going to try cycling to work because if I go through a red light while on my mobile and run over a kitten I'll be fined £200." But they do say "I won't cycle because motorists drive angry when they see rule-breaking cyclists."

It's part of a new covenant: provision of safer spaces for cyclists, in return for better regulation of tw.t cyclists.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

Beaker
Stargoon
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:28 pm

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by Beaker » Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:12 am

lpm wrote:
Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:51 am
But they do say "I won't cycle because motorists drive angry when they see rule-breaking cyclists."

It's part of a new covenant: provision of safer spaces for cyclists, in return for better regulation of tw.t cyclists.
That’s an especially nasty bit of victim blaming. If I get shunted into the ditch by an angry driver, rather than seeing that as assault, you think it’s the fault of “tw.t cyclists” as a whole for provoking the hard pressed motorist, and therefore we should regulate the victim?

People should have safe spaces to ride bikes and walk, so they don’t get killed and seriously injured.

Averaged over the period 2015 to 2020:

an average of 2 pedal cyclists died and 83 were seriously injured (adjusted) per week in reported road casualties.

The dangers you face on the high street are not significantly from cyclists, tw*t or otherwise, and are sufficiently regulated proportionate to the risk.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by lpm » Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:14 am

You don't seem to understand what victim blaming is.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by WFJ » Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:17 am

lpm wrote:
Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:51 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Tue Aug 09, 2022 12:31 am
And to the extent that you wish to encourage cycling, imposing more rules on cyclists is certainly not going to help.
I dispute this. It will help. Casual and less confident cyclists will benefit. Nobody's going to say "I'm not going to try cycling to work because if I go through a red light while on my mobile and run over a kitten I'll be fined £200." But they do say "I won't cycle because motorists drive angry when they see rule-breaking cyclists."

It's part of a new covenant: provision of safer spaces for cyclists, in return for better regulation of tw.t cyclists.
Why is a vague general offence of intimidating other road users more helpful here than a specific offence of cycling while using a phone?

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by lpm » Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:21 am

Why are you opposed to a specific offence of cycling while using a phone?
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by WFJ » Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:25 am

lpm wrote:
Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:21 am
🤡
OK. I get it now.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by lpm » Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:58 am

TfL survey from 2016.

Do you feel that cyclists in general are dangerous? 12% strongly agree, 33% agree.

Do you feel that cyclists in general are respectful? 10% strongly disagree, 23% disagree.

Do you feel that cyclists in general are respectful? 13% strongly disagree, 25% disagree.

Do you feel that cyclists in general are law abiding? 14% strongly disagree, 26% disagree.

Page 81 https://content.tfl.gov.uk/attitudes-to ... g-2016.pdf

It's no coincidence that around 33% of people are strongly opposed or opposed to investment in more cycling infrastructure. It's the two sides of the same coin. Take action on one side and it'll help us get action on the other.

I've got a plan to improve these attitudes, WFJ. What's your plan, apart from knee-jerk whining?
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by Gfamily » Tue Aug 09, 2022 10:53 am

lpm wrote:
Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:58 am
I've got a plan to improve these attitudes, WFJ. What's your plan, apart from knee-jerk whining?
Really? You've not shown anything to suggest that it'll "improve the attitudes".
Properly applying enforcement of the existing rules for motorists and cyclists alike would be a start. But good luck with that!
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
Rich Scopie
Snowbonk
Posts: 536
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:21 pm

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by Rich Scopie » Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:32 am

WFJ wrote:
Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:18 pm
Cycling drunk is already an offence in the UK. Apart from using a mobile while cycling, does the Netherlands have any cycling-related offences that the UK is missing?
Although, according to an ex-policeman friend of mine, you can't be breathalysed if you're riding a bike, which renders the whole point somewhat moot.
It first was a rumour dismissed as a lie, but then came the evidence none could deny:
a double page spread in the Sunday Express — the Russians are running the DHSS!

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by IvanV » Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:39 am

lpm wrote:
Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:51 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Tue Aug 09, 2022 12:31 am
And to the extent that you wish to encourage cycling, imposing more rules on cyclists is certainly not going to help.
I dispute this. It will help. Casual and less confident cyclists will benefit. Nobody's going to say "I'm not going to try cycling to work because if I go through a red light while on my mobile and run over a kitten I'll be fined £200." But they do say "I won't cycle because motorists drive angry when they see rule-breaking cyclists."

It's part of a new covenant: provision of safer spaces for cyclists, in return for better regulation of tw.t cyclists.
OK I understand where you are coming from now, and that our aims are the same.

You quote the TfL survey indicating a relatively high level of general prejudice against cyclists, and we recognise that prejudice is an important part of solving the issue of why British people won't use bikes very much. The other main problems are crap bicycle facilities, which are made deliberately difficult to use because we are excessively focused on trying to exclude motorbikes from them rather than encourage their use by their intended users; and a perception of an unsafe and hostile roadspace to ride a bicycle on.

I doubt that bringing in sensible laws controlling cycling will suffice to reduce prejudice, in fact I think it is probably at best a small factor in that. What will happen is that the government will fix the law, there'll be a case with an "unsatisfactory outcome" from the victim's relatives' perspective, and they'll claim it didn't work, and we'll be back where we started.

It's like the motoring laws. What repeatedly happens there is that some people die, and other participants in that accident are acquitted, or found guilty of a lesser charge, perhaps because of evidential difficulties, or even without that given a sentence which perfectly accords with the sentencing guidelines but which fails to satisfy the victims' relatives' idea of proportionality in view of a death occurring. When the perpetrator belongs to an "out-group", as far as the victims and those who identify with the victims are concerned, be that out-group bicycle users, people with dark skins, "hooligans", or whatever, so a general sense of grievance againt that outgroup remains, a desire to hold them to a higher standard than if the perpetrator was a member of an in-group, a member of the victims' family, for example.

But ultimately that's not a reason to fail to bring in sensible and effective laws. The current proposal is for a stupid law. If bringing in a stupid law sufficed to do much about this, then I can see the sense in doing it. But I think a stupid law is going to be even less effective than a sensible law in achieving what you have in mind.

Meanwhile, solving prejudice is difficult. Why is that is prejudice rare in countries where bicycles are commonly used? It's because cycling is established across society so that no one sees bicycle users as an outgroup. Rather they identify with bicycle users because everyone has numerous family members and friends who use bicycles; and going out for a bicycle ride is seen as a normal family activity; and using a bicycle is seen as a normal way to make local journeys to school, work, the shops, etc.

Meanwhile we continue to design mostly-bad cycle facilities in a way that tends to perpetuates the "problem cycling" issue. The way to get w.nkers on bikes - and motorbikes - off cycle facilities, or at least make them less conspicuous, is to have such facilities heavily used by normal bicycle users so that the w.nkers find them unattractive. That's why you don't see gates and chicanes across the entrances to bicycle lanes anywhere except in Britain - it is only in Britain we feel the apparent need to make it awkward to get onto a bicycle facility, because it is more important to us to exclude w.nkers on motorbikes than encourage people to use them for their intended purpose.

Encouraging cycling also requires laws that put a proper duty of care on motorists to drive appropriately in the vicinity of vulnerable road users of all kinds. Recently a motorist got a £1000+ fine for a close pass (and his subsequent comments showed that he still misunderstood what this meant.) It was originally a £200 fixed penalty, but he chose not to pay, and ended up being prosecuted. That's a small start in the direction of changing attitudes to safe driving in the vicinity of vulnerable road users. But our laws in this area remain weak and relatively ineffective in comparison to most countries on the continent.

So cycling representative organisations are unsurprisingly incensed that the government talks the talk of encouraging cycling, falls far short in delivering the legal and infrastructural and attitude changes needed, but instead spends legislative time on this stupid law which will be cited in only a handful of prosecutions per year. If this stupid law was going to work in the manner you suggest, perhaps I wouldn't mind so much. But I don't think it will.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by IvanV » Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:46 am

Rich Scopie wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:32 am
WFJ wrote:
Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:18 pm
Cycling drunk is already an offence in the UK. Apart from using a mobile while cycling, does the Netherlands have any cycling-related offences that the UK is missing?
Although, according to an ex-policeman friend of mine, you can't be breathalysed if you're riding a bike, which renders the whole point somewhat moot.
For driving a car, there is a defined alcohol level that makes it an offence. That's not true for riding a bicycle. Rather the criterion is (I'm not looking at the actual words), something like not being unsafely out of control. There seems to be general perception that you can ride a bicycle in an acceptably safe manner with a higher level of alcohol than the level at which you would be not allowed to drive a car. After all, by far the main risk is to the rider.

I think it is both societally useful and practically sensible that you can legally cycle home from the pub, or whatever, with a higher level of alcohol than you can drive a car, provided you are still steady on your legs. I think it is also a common attitude in other countries also.

If we deny that, then do we also breathalyse pedestrians, to adapt a point made early on in this thread?

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by WFJ » Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:58 am

IvanV wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:46 am
Rich Scopie wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:32 am
WFJ wrote:
Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:18 pm
Cycling drunk is already an offence in the UK. Apart from using a mobile while cycling, does the Netherlands have any cycling-related offences that the UK is missing?
Although, according to an ex-policeman friend of mine, you can't be breathalysed if you're riding a bike, which renders the whole point somewhat moot.
For driving a car, there is a defined alcohol level that makes it an offence. That's not true for riding a bicycle. Rather the criterion is (I'm not looking at the actual words), something like not being unsafely out of control. There seems to be general perception that you can ride a bicycle in an acceptably safe manner with a higher level of alcohol than the level at which you would be not allowed to drive a car. After all, by far the main risk is to the rider.

I think it is both societally useful and practically sensible that you can legally cycle home from the pub, or whatever, with a higher level of alcohol than you can drive a car, provided you are still steady on your legs. I think it is also a common attitude in other countries also.

If we deny that, then do we also breathalyse pedestrians, to adapt a point made early on in this thread?
In Germany the cycling alcohol limit is higher than that for driving, but you can lose your driving licence if you're caught exceeding it.

User avatar
Opti
Dorkwood
Posts: 1473
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:21 pm
Location: On the beach

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by Opti » Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:00 am

IvanV wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:39 am


Meanwhile, solving prejudice is difficult. Why is that is prejudice rare in countries where bicycles are commonly used? It's because cycling is established across society so that no one sees bicycle users as an outgroup. Rather they identify with bicycle users because everyone has numerous family members and friends who use bicycles; and going out for a bicycle ride is seen as a normal family activity; and using a bicycle is seen as a normal way to make local journeys to school, work, the shops, etc.

Here in Spain cyclists don't face anything like the prejudice that they do in the UK.
F.ex. The law has recently been changed such that when overtaking a cyclist not only must you leave a 1.5m gap but also reduce your speed by 20 km/h. If it is safe to do so you must move to the outside lane on a dual carriageway. These laws are enforced rigorously with heavy fines, but most people adhere rigidly to the law. Cyclists are regarded very differently here. Even the w.nkers.
Time for a big fat one.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by Woodchopper » Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:08 am

On prejudice, IMHO one issue is that places with a lot of cyclists have invested in cycling infrastructure. Cyclists have their own areas, separate from cars and pedestrians. People have far less reason to be pissed off because there are far fewer interactions between cyclists and motorists or pedestrians.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by lpm » Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:34 pm

IvanV wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:39 am
lpm wrote:
Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:51 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Tue Aug 09, 2022 12:31 am
And to the extent that you wish to encourage cycling, imposing more rules on cyclists is certainly not going to help.
I dispute this. It will help. Casual and less confident cyclists will benefit. Nobody's going to say "I'm not going to try cycling to work because if I go through a red light while on my mobile and run over a kitten I'll be fined £200." But they do say "I won't cycle because motorists drive angry when they see rule-breaking cyclists."

It's part of a new covenant: provision of safer spaces for cyclists, in return for better regulation of tw.t cyclists.
OK I understand where you are coming from now, and that our aims are the same.

You quote the TfL survey indicating a relatively high level of general prejudice against cyclists, and we recognise that prejudice is an important part of solving the issue of why British people won't use bikes very much. The other main problems are crap bicycle facilities, which are made deliberately difficult to use because we are excessively focused on trying to exclude motorbikes from them rather than encourage their use by their intended users; and a perception of an unsafe and hostile roadspace to ride a bicycle on.

I doubt that bringing in sensible laws controlling cycling will suffice to reduce prejudice, in fact I think it is probably at best a small factor in that. What will happen is that the government will fix the law, there'll be a case with an "unsatisfactory outcome" from the victim's relatives' perspective, and they'll claim it didn't work, and we'll be back where we started.

It's like the motoring laws. What repeatedly happens there is that some people die, and other participants in that accident are acquitted, or found guilty of a lesser charge, perhaps because of evidential difficulties, or even without that given a sentence which perfectly accords with the sentencing guidelines but which fails to satisfy the victims' relatives' idea of proportionality in view of a death occurring. When the perpetrator belongs to an "out-group", as far as the victims and those who identify with the victims are concerned, be that out-group bicycle users, people with dark skins, "hooligans", or whatever, so a general sense of grievance againt that outgroup remains, a desire to hold them to a higher standard than if the perpetrator was a member of an in-group, a member of the victims' family, for example.

But ultimately that's not a reason to fail to bring in sensible and effective laws. The current proposal is for a stupid law. If bringing in a stupid law sufficed to do much about this, then I can see the sense in doing it. But I think a stupid law is going to be even less effective than a sensible law in achieving what you have in mind.

Meanwhile, solving prejudice is difficult. Why is that is prejudice rare in countries where bicycles are commonly used? It's because cycling is established across society so that no one sees bicycle users as an outgroup. Rather they identify with bicycle users because everyone has numerous family members and friends who use bicycles; and going out for a bicycle ride is seen as a normal family activity; and using a bicycle is seen as a normal way to make local journeys to school, work, the shops, etc.

Meanwhile we continue to design mostly-bad cycle facilities in a way that tends to perpetuates the "problem cycling" issue. The way to get w.nkers on bikes - and motorbikes - off cycle facilities, or at least make them less conspicuous, is to have such facilities heavily used by normal bicycle users so that the w.nkers find them unattractive. That's why you don't see gates and chicanes across the entrances to bicycle lanes anywhere except in Britain - it is only in Britain we feel the apparent need to make it awkward to get onto a bicycle facility, because it is more important to us to exclude w.nkers on motorbikes than encourage people to use them for their intended purpose.

Encouraging cycling also requires laws that put a proper duty of care on motorists to drive appropriately in the vicinity of vulnerable road users of all kinds. Recently a motorist got a £1000+ fine for a close pass (and his subsequent comments showed that he still misunderstood what this meant.) It was originally a £200 fixed penalty, but he chose not to pay, and ended up being prosecuted. That's a small start in the direction of changing attitudes to safe driving in the vicinity of vulnerable road users. But our laws in this area remain weak and relatively ineffective in comparison to most countries on the continent.

So cycling representative organisations are unsurprisingly incensed that the government talks the talk of encouraging cycling, falls far short in delivering the legal and infrastructural and attitude changes needed, but instead spends legislative time on this stupid law which will be cited in only a handful of prosecutions per year. If this stupid law was going to work in the manner you suggest, perhaps I wouldn't mind so much. But I don't think it will.
It goes wider than cycling. This issue is typical of how rightwingers keep hammering us on so-called "culture war" divisiveness. They win because we react the wrong way.

The trick is not to bash head-on into these traps. That's what they want. They gain from heated argument about a non-issue that rallies their loyalists. While we are left concussed.

Instead we should go around the side and use it for our purposes.

In this example, what we want is long term investment in cycling infrastructure. So go in with a reasoned compromise deal that sounds better to ignorant/impartial observers than the obstinate whining earlier in the thread. Say "Yes, totally agree that we should change cycling in Britain, we need to pass this excellent law to punish reckless cyclists who kill old ladies, and this should be part of a bigger program of separating cyclists from other road users. Let's make it safer all round. Here's a costed proposal of long term investment." Cycling representative organisations should get smart, not incensed.

There's the saying about giving up the appearance of power, in order to preserve actual power. In culture wars the right are getting the opposite. What they would win is worth nothing at all - a statue is left standing, a once-a-year incidence of a cyclist killing someone gets prosecuted under a different law, a diversity officer gets fired - while what we could win would be actual change. Let Grant Shapps have his law but don't let it be his victory by opposing it, support it then let it be our victory by changing the conversation to what matters.

I'm frustrated that whenever "they" try to put "us" on the wrong side of issues, we always fall for it. We bash straight in. We end up fighting for some obnoxious trans swimmer or campaigning to rename a street or getting angry about some troll speaking at a university. We need to learn to cheat - always concentrate on what we really want, while happily lying about or negotiating away these irrelevant culture conflicts.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
TopBadger
Catbabel
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by TopBadger » Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:09 am

lpm wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:34 pm
We need to learn to cheat - always concentrate on what we really want, while happily lying about or negotiating away these irrelevant culture conflicts.
Sounds like an excellent approach...
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by IvanV » Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:34 am

lpm wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:34 pm
Instead we should go around the side and use it for our purposes.

In this example, what we want is long term investment in cycling infrastructure. So go in with a reasoned compromise deal that sounds better to ignorant/impartial observers than the obstinate whining earlier in the thread. Say "Yes, totally agree that we should change cycling in Britain, we need to pass this excellent law to punish reckless cyclists who kill old ladies, and this should be part of a bigger program of separating cyclists from other road users. Let's make it safer all round. Here's a costed proposal of long term investment." Cycling representative organisations should get smart, not incensed.

There's the saying about giving up the appearance of power, in order to preserve actual power. In culture wars the right are getting the opposite. What they would win is worth nothing at all - a statue is left standing, a once-a-year incidence of a cyclist killing someone gets prosecuted under a different law, a diversity officer gets fired - while what we could win would be actual change. Let Grant Shapps have his law but don't let it be his victory by opposing it, support it then let it be our victory by changing the conversation to what matters.

I'm frustrated that whenever "they" try to put "us" on the wrong side of issues, we always fall for it. We bash straight in. We end up fighting for some obnoxious trans swimmer or campaigning to rename a street or getting angry about some troll speaking at a university. We need to learn to cheat - always concentrate on what we really want, while happily lying about or negotiating away these irrelevant culture conflicts.
Impressive and persuasive argument. Thank you.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by IvanV » Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:22 am

And now the government is talking about compulsory bicycle registration plates and third party insurance, because of all the bicycles we will soon have on our streets. And making bicycles respect the same speed limits as cars. Guardian article

The only country in Europe that has reg plates for bicycles used to be Switzerland, but they cancelled them a few years ago. There is no evidence that these things are necessary with increased bicycle use. If we manage to increase our level of bicycle use to that of mountainous and snowy Switzerland, we will be doing very well.

The speed limit thing is a real joke. If you see a number in a red circle, that speed limit does apply equally to all vehicles including bicycles. But the "national speed limit", as indicated for example by white circular ground with a black diagonal stripe across it, doesn't. So the 60mph limit on the open road, 70mph on dual carriageways, and implied 30mph speed limit in towns where there is no explicit signage, do not apply to bicycles. To my knowledge, there has been precisely one case where a policeman operating a speed trap on a long straight hill got a tandem going over 60mph, and tried to prosecute, despite the couple on the tandem pointing out that they was no law for them to break. The policeman insisted on going to court and was suitably humiliated by the judge.*

This is clearly just appealing to anti-bicycle prejudice once again. They can have their speed limit law, the number of bicycles succeeding in exceeding 30mph in town or 60 mph in the countryside is vanishingly small. Making bicycles have reg plates would really be stupid and counter-productive, and affect everyone using a bicycle, a massive impediment to bicycle usage. Third party insurance for cyclists is probably a good idea. I and my family have it, as does every member of Cycling UK. It can easily become a routine part of household insurance.

So we just need to negotiate out the stupid reg plate stuff. And maybe, as lpm says, negotiate some serious funding for all these huge number of bicycles the government apparently thinks are coming in return.

But if anti-bicycle prejudice is to remain common in Britain, then that is not going to be consistent with massive bicycle use on our streets.

*Royal Parks tried, a few years ago, to impose a 10mph speed limits on bicycles on cycle ways in all Royal Parks, which is a lot slower than a high proportion of bicycles travel there. They installed a lot of signage on short posts that could cause accidents. I cycled through Hyde Park one day shortly after they put it in, and they had wardens out stopping lots of bicycles going faster than 10mph. Well-informed bicycle users told them that the signs had no legal force, they were exceeding their powers, and so where to go. The signage was all removed very shortly afterwards and quickly forgotten about. Since then Hyde Park has had proper continental-quality cycleways installed, a very rare sight in this country. It took a few redesigns before they got them right. They are very heavily used to the extent that the connection to Green Park via road crossings at Hyde Park Corner is now often dangerously overloaded with more bicycles than the crossings can safely handle.

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by Gfamily » Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:59 am

IvanV wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:22 am
*Royal Parks tried, a few years ago, to impose a 10mph speed limits on bicycles on cycle ways in all Royal Parks, which is a lot slower than a high proportion of bicycles travel there. They installed a lot of signage on short posts that could cause accidents. I cycled through Hyde Park one day shortly after they put it in, and they had wardens out stopping lots of bicycles going faster than 10mph. Well-informed bicycle users told them that the signs had no legal force, they were exceeding their powers, and so where to go. The signage was all removed very shortly afterwards and quickly forgotten about. Since then Hyde Park has had proper continental-quality cycleways installed, a very rare sight in this country. It took a few redesigns before they got them right. They are very heavily used to the extent that the connection to Green Park via road crossings at Hyde Park Corner is now often dangerously overloaded with more bicycles than the crossings can safely handle.
When I was frequenting usergroups for cyclists about 15-20 years ago, there were reports of cyclists being given FPNs for exceeding the speed limits in Royal Parks. These were cyclists, on the roads, that were exceeding the general 20mph limit (rather than any specific limit for cyclists).
There is specific legislation for highways in Royal Parks, and (as far as I can tell), the FPNs were issued because in those acts, the definitions don't make the same distinction between motorised and mechanical vehicles that are explicit in the general road traffic acts (which exclude cyclists from general RTA speed limits legislation).

My personal suspicion is that the law was probably mis-applied (maybe mis-drafted), but I don't think anyone was ready to take it to appeal.
In the Hyde Park case, it's probably the case that the legislation did not give scope for specific limits on cycleways as opposed to highways, hence no legal force.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by bob sterman » Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:03 am

IvanV wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:22 am
This is clearly just appealing to anti-bicycle prejudice once again. They can have their speed limit law, the number of bicycles succeeding in exceeding 30mph in town or 60 mph in the countryside is vanishingly small. Making bicycles have reg plates would really be stupid and counter-productive, and affect everyone using a bicycle, a massive impediment to bicycle usage. Third party insurance for cyclists is probably a good idea. I and my family have it, as does every member of Cycling UK. It can easily become a routine part of household insurance.
I believe the Tour de France peleton tends to cruise along at around 25-28 mph - so this would be a niche law.

Good luck spotting a small reg plate on a bike whizzing past at > 30 mph. Perhaps cyclists will be asked to wear numbered bibs?? :D

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by Gfamily » Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:35 am

Many household contents insurance contracts include an element of general Third Party Liability insurance (away from home)* and this should include any cycling accidents.

*or they used to at least
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Death by dangerous cycling, potential offence

Post by dyqik » Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:43 am

Gfamily wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:35 am
Many household contents insurance contracts include an element of general Third Party Liability insurance (away from home)* and this should include any cycling accidents.

*or they used to at least
Homeowners ones often do, as the house is at risk and the mortgage at risk of default if the person is sued. Renters insurance is maybe less likely to.

Post Reply