Dangerous cyclists could get 14Years pokey.

Flyboy152

thelawnet wrote: »

You're not very bright are you?

Why all this abject rudeness? You really are not doing your argument any good t all.

Take another look at this road scene:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=guildford&aq=&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=17.759517,53.569336&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Guildford,+United+Kingdom&layer=c&cbll=51.262556,-0.573295&panoid=hv4-ykdjRKxFk2BSOsA9Cw&cbp=12,183.93,,0,9.74&ll=51.262452,-0.573263&spn=0.018315,0.052314&z=15

The light is green to turn left, but red to go straight ahead, coming up to the junction there is only 1 lane, but it widens for the left turn.

What happens, literally dozens of times a day, is that cars are wanting to turn left, the light is green to turn left but red to go straight on, but they can't get into the empty left-turn lane because the road is too narrow. So what do they do? They mount the kerb to get past.

So, you use the excuse that "someone else does it, that means I can do it?" Since when was that a viable defence?

As for pedestrians on the pavement, there's a sweeping bend (good visibility for me) and a steep hill leading up to it. In the unlikely event that there was a pedestrian there while I was riding my bike I would see them in plenty of time, be travelling slowly (it's a hill, remember?) and would give way to them. Crossing the road? Er, no, not a chance, it's a busy A-road with no footway on the other side.

This no excuse. The pictures you have linked to show junctions which you have no inkling of what is around the corner. You have no idea whether there are children, elderly or disabled people about to come around the corner, totally unaware of the presence of some idiot on a bicycle. But then, why should they expect one, seeing that they are on a pedestrian footpath

And no, I don't need to queue like everybody else, that's why I ride a bicycle - on the open road motorists will overtake, that's the advantage of an engine, but when things get more congested I am able to filter as appropriate - that's the advantage of a bicycle.

Yet again, the sheer arrogance you demonstrate further reduces your credibility. You cannot compound your disregard for the law and for basic common courtesy to the rest of society, by trying to justify your illegal use of footpaths. Yes, you should queue like everybody else, that is what you are expected to do. Would you expect a car driver to get away with mounting the pavement, using the same excuse as you?

BTW, when was the last time you broke the speed limit in your car? What if a child had run out in front of your vehicle?

It was probably this morning, driving on the motorway; not much of a chance of seeing a child jump out in front of me there. Even if I had been driving at fifty-five I wouldn't have much chance of stopping in time. But then, I don't go on internet forums boasting about it, or try to justify it.

Spare me the self-righteous hypocrisy about me using an empty piece of pavement at little more than walking space on my bicycle, posing no threat to anybody won't you please?

Then get off your bicycle and walk on the pavement, like everybody esle; that is what the pavement is for. What sets you above the rest of society, what makes you think you are excempt from the law that everyone esle is expected to obey?

Flyboy152

esuhl wrote: »

I wish motorists were given £500 fines every time they:

• drove over the speed limit
• drove at unsafe speeds when below the speed limit
• failed to give way
• failed to indicate in the presence of other road users
• ran red/amber lights when they should have stopped

Given the atrocious behaviour of many drivers and the high pass-rate of the driving test... it clearly isn't hard enough.

And given the reckless way that some motorists drive, they obviously aren't concerned about damaging their vehicle. If driving was an expensive luxury (as it should be), they might think twice about their aggressive driving style.

There are few cyclists compared to drivers, and motor vehicles present a far greater danger than a bikes. So it makes much more sense to clamp down on "everyday" dangerous driving by fitting "black box recorders" to cars so that fines can be issued automatically than it does to target cyclists who generally cause very few accidents.

If the average driver was fined twice a year at £500 a go, that would be a revenue of about £38 billion that would go straight to the Treasury. Road deaths/injuries would drop almost overnight, some drivers might realise that they don't have the necessary skill to control a motor vehicle and would give up driving, and £38,000,000,000 would go a long way in improving public transport and reducing the national debt. It'd be a win/win/win situation!

There are already mechanisms in place to prosecute drivers who break the law. Generally speaking, it will cost them more than five hundred pounds, if you add the cost of the fine and the increased insurance premiums.

I wonder if you would support the fitting of "black box recorders" to all vehicles; powered and unpowered.

mustrum_ridcully

Some interesting stats from the BBC article about this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

Pedestrian casualties 2001-09
* Killed by cycles: 18
* Seriously injured by cycles: 434
* Killed by cars: 3,495
* Seriously injured by cars: 46,245

Get some perspective folks!

I'm not a cyclist, in fact bad/suicidal cyclists are a pet hate of mine :mad:.

chorlton

The benefits of cycling far outweigh the negatives - improving public health and reducing congestion for a start.
It is government policy to encourage more cycling, so they are hardly likely to introduce measures that are expensive to administer and discourage cycling...
(Taxing a zero emissions vehicle costs... £zero - cost to administer sending out millions of free tax discs to cyclists - £millions. Similarly, the cost of policing compulsory insurance would be far higher than the revenue it generated.)
And as for haveing a specific law to cover the one or two deaths caused by cyclists each year - that is ridiculous!

The laws we have are fine - they just need to be a applied a bit more often.

thelawnet

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Why all this abject rudeness? You really are not doing your argument any good t all.

After the umpteenth page of this nonsense people attacking supposedly cyclists in the face of daily carnage from motor cars, I have little patience for people whining about cyclists.

So, you use the excuse that "someone else does it, that means I can do it?" Since when was that a viable defence?

No, I'm pointing out that road-going lawbreaking is de rigeur. No doubt the motorists consider that mounting the pavement with their 3 tonne vehicles is AOK, I feel the same about my 10kg bicycle (although I wouldn't do it in a busy area, unless it was specifically signed for cyclists).

I was just riding home from the shops now, I was riding along a residential road at about 20mph with cars parked in my lane, a BMW X5 overtook me too close, with a parked car ahead of me (which meant I would have to move out), and then just to rub in his selfishness, set off the '30mph slow down' electronic sign - this in a village centre with a children's playground ahead, shoppers, etc.

I'm all for roadusers obeying the law, and while I certainly wouldn't dream of doing anything as potentially lethal as driving my 6400 lb absurd fake 4x4 within 6 inches of an unprotected road user in excess of the speed limit in a residential area, I refuse to feel guilty about riding on an unused bit of pavement at barely more than walking pace.

This no excuse. The pictures you have linked to show junctions which you have no inkling of what is around the corner.

There is only ONE junction. I went from the road to the pavement, continued on the pavement and then re-entered the road before the traffic lights.

I'm not really sure what you mean about having no idea what is round the corner. How on earth do you suppose motorists turn left and right? Just turn and pray? Ridiculous.

You have no idea whether there are children, elderly or disabled people about to come around the corner, totally unaware of the presence of some idiot on a bicycle. But then, why should they expect one, seeing that they are on a pedestrian footpath

In the unlikely event that there were pedestrians on this particular stretch of pavement, seeing as, unlike the typical motorcar, I am travelling very slowly (up a hill), and, again unlike many motorists, I am LOOKING WHERE I AM GOING (rather than twiddling with the hifi, chatting with a passenger, making a phone call, adjusting the satnav, etc.), there would be no problems whatsoever.

And FWIW, alert pedestrians certainly would expect bikes there, given that the pavement after you turn left at the lights is a shared path, and across the lights:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=guildford&aq=&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=17.759517,53.569336&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Guildford,+United+Kingdom&layer=c&cbll=51.261399,-0.573158&panoid=iglpPGzeqQd1-VDy2BH3pg&cbp=12,46.52,,0,-2.48&ll=51.261243,-0.573134&spn=0,0.052142&t=h&z=15

you can also ride quite legally on a very similar bit of pavement.

Although looking at Guildford Council's cycle leaflet it says that the pavement I was riding on is actually a cycle track anyway (part of NCN route 223). http://www.guildford.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3017&p=0

So maybe they just never got round to signing it properly and it was legal all alone. Who cares. Not me.

Regardless as a cyclist I don't expect pedestrians to be alert, which is why I am always able to stop if riding in shared situations.

Yet again, the sheer arrogance you demonstrate further reduces your credibility. You cannot compound your disregard for the law and for basic common courtesy to the rest of society, by trying to justify your illegal use of footpaths. Yes, you should queue like everybody else, that is what you are expected to do. Would you expect a car driver to get away with mounting the pavement, using the same excuse as you?

The car drivers do get away with mounting the pavement, many times per day, in this exact spot. I doubt the police would even bat an eyelid. I doubt they imagine they are contributing to the breakdown of society.

It was probably this morning, driving on the motorway; not much of a chance of seeing a child jump out in front of me there. Even if I had been driving at fifty-five I wouldn't have much chance of stopping in time. But then, I don't go on internet forums boasting about it, or try to justify it.

Ah yes, an 'I only speed on the motorway' merchant. It must be everyone else except you that breaks the speed limit on other roads. :rotfl:

Then get off your bicycle and walk on the pavement, like everybody esle; that is what the pavement is for. What sets you above the rest of society, what makes you think you are excempt from the law that everyone esle is expected to obey?

Speak for yourself matey, you just said you broke the law this morning. What sets you above the rest of society? Eh???

(Of course I could have dismounted, and self-righteously pushed my bicycle, perhaps even at running speed, which would have been more obstructive to any pedestrian anyway.)

esuhl

Flyboy152 wrote: »

There are already mechanisms in place to prosecute drivers who break the law.

And there are already mechanisms in place to prosecute cyclists who break the law.

It seems that some ill-informed people posting on this thread believe that more punitive measures should be taken against cycling infractions. However, given the vastly increased danger of driving (compared to cycling), and the sheer number of incidents of dangerous driving that most people witness on a daily basis, it's quite clear that we should be targeting drivers with more punitive measures.

Drivers have had it easy for years. Drink driving was quite common a few decades ago, and it's still socially acceptable to break the speed limit, run red lights, and deal with all manner of distractions whilst behind the wheel. Driving attentively is a skill that not everyone is capable of, yet anyone who wants a driving licence seems able to get one.

We need to restrict the right to drive to only those who can demonstrate that they are capable of doing so responsibly, and hand out more fines and bans to drivers who fail to meet the required standard of driving.

Perhaps then the dangerous, aggressive, belligerent drivers who are forced out of their cars and on to bicycles would at last understand what it's like to be a cyclist, and how close to death you can come at the hands of reckless drivers.

Derivative

I will repeat my earlier post:

Cycling on the pavement is not inherently dangerous.
Cycling on the pavement dangerously, i.e, with excessive speed around blind corners, near pedestrians, animals or other hazards, is dangerous.

I would hope people use common sense.

If I encounter small children or animals in my path, I get off the bike and walk past them. Then I get back on, as there's no hazard for another 500 metres.

There is no reason to brand an activity as dangerous simply because one citizen has behaved irresponsibly.

What could happen if I flew around a blind corner at 25mph?
Something similar to if a motorist performed an overtake on a blind corner.

That's why rational people don't do it.

Righteous arguments involving the law are silly. You should weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of obeying the law at any one time. There are many victimless crimes that don't deserve a place in statute.