Speeding Cyclists

aleph_0

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Cyclists do not pose "the same" risk to pedestrians as motor vehicles do to cyclists, but they (we) pose a higher risk to pedestrians than other pedestrians do. This risk is still minimal, both in terms of likelihood of collision and probable outcome.


I like riding as if strict liability exists - it completely removes the "get out of the way" mentality and I feel it makes me more observant to pedestrian movements. I ride slightly further away from the kerb so if someone steps out (a likely scenario) they won't immediately get run over by me. EVERYONE knows pedestrians don't look sometimes, so it's perfectly possible to mitigate for this in the same way it is to ride away from the door-zone (even though the 'fault' if there is a collision would lie on different sides of the line). I also try to drive with a similar outlook.


The arguments I've heard against it is that it would give free licence to cyclists to do whatever they want with no repercussions, which is clearly rubbish, both in terms of physical risk to the rider, and legal risk if they are proved to be at fault.

You're right, I'm convinced. Actually, this has been a useful exercise. As a good cyclist, I also try to do the above as standard. Which leaves me with a skewed view of cyclist vs pedestrian risks - for the scenarios where strict liability laws would apply, I already try to mitigate/avoid such risks through my riding style (away from kerb, awareness of pedestrian behaviour and changing speed/distance from kerb as appropriate).

I can now see how it's exactly the same irrational objection a motorist might have. They either are unaware of the risk they cause, or they are, and already drive accordingly. In which case, it's very easy to imagine the idea of strict liability as being much stricter than it actually is - because by already mitigating such risks in your driving, one struggles to imagine scenarios where strict liability would be useful.

Marco_Panettone

aleph_0 wrote: »

You're right, I'm convinced. Actually, this has been a useful exercise. As a good cyclist, I also try to do the above as standard. Which leaves me with a skewed view of cyclist vs pedestrian risks - for the scenarios where strict liability laws would apply, I already try to mitigate/avoid such risks through my riding style (away from kerb, awareness of pedestrian behaviour and changing speed/distance from kerb as appropriate).

I can now see how it's exactly the same irrational objection a motorist might have. They either are unaware of the risk they cause, or they are, and already drive accordingly. In which case, it's very easy to imagine the idea of strict liability as being much stricter than it actually is - because by already mitigating such risks in your driving, one struggles to imagine scenarios where strict liability would be useful.

You don't happen to be in charge of making it law, by any chance?


One down.... :-)

aleph_0

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

You don't happen to be in charge of making it law, by any chance?


One down.... :-)

Sadly not, the world would be awesome if I ran it, though. I doubt we're anywhere near the point where politicians would actually want to attach their name to such a law.

I was convinced of the notion of strict liability before, just not the idea that it was a worthwhile exercise for cyclists over pedestrians. I would have still supported it if that was what was needed to get strictly liability for motor vehicles implemented.

ceredigion

Elsewhere wrote: »

I did not see the incident myself. I heard from friends that the woman was standing on the pavement at a bus stop.

Yes, the parish council warned the police about speeding cyclists - because of all the complaints that local people have made over the last year or two. I'm not talking about families out to take the air on their bikes, or folks on their way to work, but the idiots clad in Lycra who regard Dorset's back lanes as their own personal race track.

Here's a typical comment made on a local community forum about a cyclist in the same village. (October 2013)

"A couple of things that boiled my blood today. 1st at 1125 my wife was heading down Langton and pulled in by the church to allow a slow moving large vehicle to come up past her, at this point one of god chosen disciples ( a cyclist) thought he had the right to shoot pass us cut in front (us big old cars don't have paint work or need insurance do we?) and go down the rd causing the on coming van to swerve to avoid him. He was of course travelling at speed, this despite the big red warning sign at the top of the village. Again a cyclist who is above the law, and totally ignorant of other rd users"

I have witnessed such behaviour in the village myself. The High Street is on a long slope and cyclists whizz down it, weaving between the cars parked on either side- and as I said before, pedestrians do not hear them coming - bring back the bell on the handlebars!!!

Pedestrians' views may be blocked by cars or the bends in the narrow High Street in the village (as the cyclists' views of pedestrians may be blocked). The passing cars, buses etc go at a snail's pace most of the time because there is rarely room to pass - but of course the cyclists just nip through gaps even when they can't see what is holding up the traffic.

I am sure it's only a small proportion of cyclists who are so thoughtless but often that's all it takes to tar everyone with the same brush

That single line speaks volumes, it shows the parish council have no knowledge of the law as it stands. Have not taken the time or trouble to find out what is written in the appropriate legislation and they are asking the police to inforce something that doesn't exist. What are the police supposed to do? How many man hours are they supposed to spend on this problem when there is no law being broken. Speed limits don't apply to pedal cycles .

Avoriaz

The always excellent Matt in the DT.