Dangerous cyclists could get 14Years pokey.

esuhl

asbokid wrote: »

To sum up, the cyclist, unlike the motorist, doesn't need insurance, he's not required to stop after a collision, he doesn't have to provide his details to the third party, and he doesn't have to report the collision to the police..

And yet you have the temerity to claim that existing laws on cycling are satisfactory.

There are vastly more dangerous drivers on the road than dangerous cyclists. If public safety is that important, any driver travelling at 21mph in a 20mph zone should be imprisoned, as should the 2 million uninsured drivers, anyone driving with insufficient tread on their tyres, etc.

I very rarely see (almost never) cyclists behaving irresponsibly, yet dangerous drivers are everywhere. Perhaps drivers ought to be required to re-take their test each year and submit to regular drug testing. Perhaps all motor vehicles ought to be fitted with tracking devices that automatically issue fines and jail sentences if the driver jumps a red light, changes lanes without indicating or breaks the speed limit. That would undoubtedly save many many more lives than the introduction of cycling legislation.

Part of the problem is that driving is so cheap and a licence is so easy to obtain that any unskilled moron can jump into a car without giving it a second thought. The government ought to increase petrol prices to reduce congestion and ensure that there is a zero-tolerance approach to bad driving. If breaking the speed limit was automatically detetcted and resulted in a prison sentence, the safety of our roads would improve overnight.

custardy

asbokid wrote: »

This isn't about fractions or proportions. Proportionately, very few people die in airline accidents yet insurance is still compulsory.

This is about raw figures.

Over 200 pedestrians were injured by cyclists in 2009 and more than 60 were seriously injured, i.e. they were maimed and hospitalised.

Many more injuries caused by cyclists goe unreported. So too for all the damage that cyclists are causing to others' property.

Almost all cyclists are uninsured. Injured parties are not bothering to report collisions. Recovering damages from a cyclist is unlikely to be successful. The cyclist may not even stop to leave his details.

In other words, the cyclist has no obligations.

To sum up, the cyclist, unlike the motorist, doesn't need insurance, he's not required to stop after a collision, he doesn't have to provide his details to the third party, and he doesn't have to report the collision to the police..

And yet you have the temerity to claim that existing laws on cycling are satisfactory.

You are certainly no ambassador for other Lycra louts!

and you are a blinkered fool
Custardy,a non lycra wearing pedestrian,cyclist and owner of two cars
just in from a nice cycle through the city,all on the road/cycle paths and not a red light crossed

janninew

esuhl wrote: »

There are vastly more dangerous drivers on the road than dangerous cyclists. If public safety is that important, any driver travelling at 21mph in a 20mph zone should be imprisoned, as should the 2 million uninsured drivers, anyone driving with insufficient tread on their tyres, etc.

I very rarely see (almost never) cyclists behaving irresponsibly, yet dangerous drivers are everywhere. Perhaps drivers ought to be required to re-take their test each year and submit to regular drug testing. Perhaps all motor vehicles ought to be fitted with tracking devices that automatically issue fines and jail sentences if the driver jumps a red light, changes lanes without indicating or breaks the speed limit. That would undoubtedly save many many more lives than the introduction of cycling legislation.

Part of the problem is that driving is so cheap and a licence is so easy to obtain that any unskilled moron can jump into a car without giving it a second thought. The government ought to increase petrol prices to reduce congestion and ensure that there is a zero-tolerance approach to bad driving. If breaking the speed limit was automatically detetcted and resulted in a prison sentence, the safety of our roads would improve overnight.

Just out of interest what Country do you live in?

Driving is anything but "cheap" record fuel prices which seem to increase daily and insurance costs soaring, mine has gone up by £250.00 for no reason at all. If driver's get priced off the road and we all start using bikes, where will the tax that the government take of us for using cars come from? I dread to think how much they make from petrol, car tax etc.

Dave_C_2

I cannot believe the anti-cyclist vitriol being posted in this thread.

Some of us enjoy the safe and healthy pastime of cycling on country lanes and bridle paths where they are part of the national cycle network. On my regular cycle routes I can confidently say that I have never gone through a red light (there is only the one on the ride into town).

Apparently this makes me a danger to civilisation and I should be locked up for daring to ride a bike!

I also own a car and it's taxed and insured. Maybe I should rant at myself from both sides of the fence. If I can live with it I'm sure that you can.

Dave

Strider590

Dave_C wrote: »

I cannot believe the anti-cyclist vitriol being posted in this thread.

It's all media fueled non-sense..... People get mildly irritated by cyclists holding them up for an extra 15 seconds (which I admit can seem like a lifetime), newpapers pick up on this and stir up a load of trouble, people think "hey look, it's ok to hate cyclists!!"..... Rinse/repeat and weeks later the result is a bunch of drivers who don't know why they hate cyclists, but head out with the "i'll knock you off your bike mentality" anyway.

ventureuk

http://xkcd.com/386/

Threads like this are better than riding my bike on the pavement.....almost.

asbokid

Strider590 wrote: »

It's all media fueled non-sense..... People get mildly irritated by cyclists holding them up for an extra 15 seconds (which I admit can seem like a lifetime), newpapers pick up on this and stir up a load of trouble, people think "hey look, it's ok to hate cyclists!!"..... Rinse/repeat and weeks later the result is a bunch of drivers who don't know why they hate cyclists, but head out with the "i'll knock you off your bike mentality" anyway.

Well, it's good that you got that off your chest!

This was originally a thread about a proposed change in the law, following an incident in which a cyclist deliberately struck a young woman and killed her.

The general consensus is that the existing laws surrounding manslaughter should have been used in that instance.

However, there are a host of other legal areas concerning bicycling which could usefully be updated..

Requirement for 3rd party insurance for cyclists
Contribution through taxation to road maintenance, cycle lane provision, etc.
Obligation to stop after a collision
Obligation to provide details to third party in the event of collision and/or
Obligation to report collision to police.

If you believe those provisions are unreasonable, please explain why.

Strider590

You make it sound like cyclists are these Ninja car vandals that ride around running red lights and slamming into pedestrian.

Fact is, it's VERY rarely the cyclist at fault and drivers behave the way they do toward them because they've been told the opposite.

asbokid

Strider590 wrote: »

According to the media reports, the young pedestrian was not acting in a drunken manner. She was essentially stationary when the aggressive cyclist deliberately struck her while she stood on the pavement.

Im sorry, that's just non-sense.....

A group of drunken youths are a VERY real threat to a cyclist, they often do their best to scare you or knock you off.

Girls showing off are particularly bad because they think you'll stop for a girl.

I wrote before:

"Have we been told about the background of this cyclist? Has he got any previous criminal convictions? Does he hold a driving licence? Why was he cycling? What was the purpose and destination of his journey? Was he in employment at the time of the collision? Was he under the influence of drink or drugs? Does he have psychiatric problems? At the time of the offence, did he have any previous convictions for road traffic offences? Does he have a history of violence?"

An Essex JP who writes on the Magistrate's Blog has commented:

"According to the reports the cyclist was "known" for his reckless behaviour. He knew the victim was there and told her that he had no intention of stopping - the court heard he could have done so, if minded. In my view a prosecution for involuntary manslaughter would have been appropriate. I suspect the CPS went for the line of least resistance and a guaranteed result for the targets."

alanrowell

asbokid wrote: »

This was originally a thread about a proposed change in the law, following an incident in which a cyclist deliberately struck a young woman and killed her.

Deliberately? :huh: