Cyclists not using hand signals

thelawnet

Tilt wrote: »

I don not have a problem with responsible and law abiding cyclists at all. According to Custardy, he is one of them. But the ones who do put themselves in un-necessary danger by riding down one-way streets, through red lights, across pavements, the wrong way around traffic islands AND without lights at night, deserve to have the book thrown at them, just like us 'bad motorists' do.

Define 'the book thrown at them'?

This killer motorist was fined £200 for killing a cyclist in 2009:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1319839/HGV-driver-bad-eyesight-killed-TV-producer-bicycle-fined-just-200.html

He went onto kill a pedestrian in 2011

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/lorry_driver_charged_with_97_year_old_marylebone_pensioner_s_death_1_1334175

What kind of book do you think they'll throw at him this time? The big book of fluffy pillows???!?

Based on this standard of justice, what do you think the 'book' they throw at cyclists for not using lights or other irritant should be?

Tilt

thelawnet wrote: »

Define 'the book thrown at them'?

This killer motorist was fined £200 for killing a cyclist in 2009:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1319839/HGV-driver-bad-eyesight-killed-TV-producer-bicycle-fined-just-200.html

He went onto kill a pedestrian in 2011

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/lorry_driver_charged_with_97_year_old_marylebone_pensioner_s_death_1_1334175

What kind of book do you think they'll throw at him this time? The big book of fluffy pillows???!?

Based on this standard of justice, what do you think the 'book' they throw at cyclists for not using lights or other irritant should be?

The law should apply to all road users basically is what I meant. Unfortunately it seems that sentences can be very un-necessarily lenient and believe me it makes my blood boil too.

But the fact remains that more and more cyclists seem to be flouting the law and riding without lights at night seems to be top of the list. I have actually seen police cars overtake such offenders and not batted an eyelid.

I had a near miss a couple of years ago when I was turning left onto a poorly lit narrow road going uphill. As I turned, 3 young cyclists were travelling down the hill at speed riding side by side. One even had another child on the back! Not one of them had any lights on so it wasn't until I had made the turn that my headlights illuminated them. But as the road was narrow, the front of my car was slightly over the middle of the road thus putting me on a collision course with the 2 'outriders'. At he speed they were travelling it was impossible for them to stop or avoid me so it was me who had to take evasive action which fortunately, I managed to do.

The kids obviously could see the imminent danger they were in because there were terrified screams as they went passed me. Had I been driving a longer vehicle, they would of been seriously injured at the very least.

There is no excuse for riding without lights and offenders should be prosecuted, end of.

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

The law should apply to all road users basically is what I meant. Unfortunately it seems that sentences can be very un-necessarily lenient and believe me it makes my blood boil too.

But the fact remains that more and more cyclists seem to be flouting the law and riding without lights at night seems to be top of the list. I have actually seen police cars overtake such offenders and not batted an eyelid.

I had a near miss a couple of years ago when I was turning left onto a poorly lit narrow road going uphill. As I turned, 3 young cyclists were travelling down the hill at speed riding side by side. One even had another child on the back! Not one of them had any lights on so it wasn't until I had made the turn that my headlights illuminated them. But as the road was narrow, the front of my car was slightly over the middle of the road thus putting me on a collision course with the 2 'outriders'. At he speed they were travelling it was impossible for them to stop or avoid me so it was me who had to take evasive action which fortunately, I managed to do.

The kids obviously could see the imminent danger they were in because there were terrified screams as they went passed me. Had I been driving a longer vehicle, they would of been seriously injured at the very least.

There is no excuse for riding without lights and offenders should be prosecuted, end of.

go out on a bike and you can have one every day to post

todays

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=dundee+terrace+edinburgh&hl=en&ll=55.939663,-3.222586&spn=0.000712,0.00202&client=opera&oe=utf-8&hnear=Dundee+Terrace,+Edinburgh,+United+Kingdom&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=55.939663,-3.222586&panoid=kld35r7KRJbpNSmSt1pxbQ&cbp=12,52.38,,0,0

Range Rover decides that my life isnt worth them allowing me to pass the Approach Road entrance(as you can see bikes are not allowed on the approach road)
had I not checked(as I know al to well the actions on that road)
i would be decorating the bonnet of a Range Rover now

hugheskevi

Range Rover decides that my life isnt worth them allowing me to pass the Approach Road entrance(as you can see bikes are not allowed on the approach road)
had I not checked(as I know al to well the actions on that road)
i would be decorating the bonnet of a Range Rover now

Did you notice the young guy outside the cemetery on Google maps?

I've had similar happen to me, although in my case I don't think the driver was especially to blame - the cycle path at a set of lights was very poorly marked (cycle path went straight on, across a no-car zone), and I would blame the council more than the driver who turned across me (I could have done better in anticipating it too, admittedly). Fortunately that set of lights has now been repainted and is much clearer.

To add my two-penneth to the discussion, I commute about 3,000 miles a year by bike and have done for a few years now. In that time, having indicators, numberplates, etc, would have had no impact whatsoever on the 4 very near-misses I can recall.

Two of those were due to cars/vans opening doors without looking, one due to poor road markings (above) and the final one a car overtaking me and immediately turning left across me (ie, within about 5-10 yards)...that is not uncommon, but in this case I really didn't think I'd be able to stop in time - usually it is more a case of being forced to slow right down.

I'd say the best thing to have on a bike for my cycle route is fantastic brakes (ie well above level required) - I could easily have had about 5 minor dings if I wasn't able to stop very quickly in response to cars and vans doing silly things due to inattention (buses, taxi drivers and lorry drivers tend to be more predictable - annoying perhaps, but not dangerous). Indicators, numberplates, registrations, etc, wouldn't have made the slightest difference.

custardy

hugheskevi wrote: »

Did you notice the young guy outside the cemetery on Google maps?

I've had similar happen to me, although in my case I don't think the driver was especially to blame - the cycle path at a set of lights was very poorly marked (cycle path went straight on, across a no-car zone), and I would blame the council more than the driver who turned across me (I could have done better in anticipating it too, admittedly). Fortunately that set of lights has now been repainted and is much clearer.

To add my two-penneth to the discussion, I commute about 3,000 miles a year by bike and have done for a few years now. In that time, having indicators, numberplates, etc, would have had no impact whatsoever on the 4 very near-misses I can recall.

Two of those were due to cars/vans opening doors without looking, one due to poor road markings (above) and the final one a car overtaking me and immediately turning left across me (ie, within about 5-10 yards)...that is not uncommon, but in this case I really didn't think I'd be able to stop in time - usually it is more a case of being forced to slow right down.

I'd say the best thing to have on a bike for my cycle route is fantastic brakes (ie well above level required) - I could easily have had about 5 minor dings if I wasn't able to stop very quickly in response to cars and vans doing silly things due to inattention (buses, taxi drivers and lorry drivers tend to be more predictable - annoying perhaps, but not dangerous). Indicators, numberplates, registrations, etc, wouldn't have made the slightest difference.

why I run a hybrid with Hydraulic discs
bled and new pads fitted yesterday
tyre traction is my limiting factor

served me well for the taxi driver who reversed out of a parking space today regardless of traffic IE me!
the cross is a particularly nasty little roundabout
poor surface,loads of traffic and dodgy parking

davidlizard

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

What planet are you on???????????????


What does any cyclist pay?, insurance...........................No

Road tax?...................................................................No

Compliance with any legislation?...................................No

So as a common motorist I am footing the bill for the risk cyclists pose and paying for them to enjoy our roads, or doesn't that make sense to you either?

Going back, what I said was make cyclist conform to road legislation by having working lights :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:, and indicators:A, heaven forbid we should ask them more than that

Insurance: Most are covered under their household insurance. The politicians have looked at this in the past and deduced that it is not worth having mandatory insurance - the premium would have been less than £1.

Road Tax: Abolished in 1936. The last time I checked, roads were paid for by the councils, for which the local taxes fund, and also from general taxation. Seeing the average cyclist pays more council tax than the average motorist (an uncomfortable fact drivers don't like!) then they more than pay for their share of the roads.

Compliance with any legislation: Depends on the police - round our way they certainly enforce riding without lights. And of course you never see cars with defective lights, accelerating hard to go through red/amber lights etc etc.

Harry_Flashman

davidlizard wrote: »

Road Tax: Abolished in 1936. The last time I checked, roads were paid for by the councils, for which the local taxes fund, and also from general taxation. Seeing the average cyclist pays more council tax than the average motorist (an uncomfortable fact drivers don't like!) then they more than pay for their share of the roads.

But a motorist has to pay a tax to use their vehicle on the road (call it what you like), whereas a cyclist doesn't (an uncomfortable fact that cyclists don't like).

thelawnet

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

But a motorist has to pay a tax to use their vehicle on the road (call it what you like), whereas a cyclist doesn't (an uncomfortable fact that cyclists don't like).

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=51310285&postcount=27

cyclonebri1

You can dress it up or down whichever way you like but motorists have to pay a "tax" to use there car on the road.
The pedants of the forum can quote anychanges in legislation they like but they cannot stop people asking for a tax disx holder, mentioning disabled tax etc even the government forms talk of taxation class :T:T

And as for "Road Tax" being based on emmisions:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:I didn't really think anyone had actually fallen for that political slight of the hand that appears green but actually takes more money overall into the "Tax" pot than the previous flat rate system did:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


And as for cyclists having insurance, yes I'm sure there are a handfull of responsible people that do, but, simply because they don't have to, the majority don't.

Norman_Castle

You can dress it up or down whichever way you like but motorists have to pay a "tax" to use there car on the road.

Highways are maintained through general taxation. Just because there is a visible link between paying a tax and having a tax disc does not mean the road network is funded from the VED.