Cyclists and road traffic signals...

duggan1

Stoke wrote: »

Driving through a red light is legal on a pushbike.

Fact...

oh wait, am I on a cycling forum?

It must be generally legal judging by the actions of the young woman who passed me stopped at a red light crossing this morning looking at something on her lap just as a lady in a pram was starting to cross the road...

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

brat wrote:

Give an example of any one law that needs amending to reflect this (that bicycles are vehicles).

Only one? The requirement to provide a specimen of breath for a start. The requirement to stop after an accident and exchange details, the obeyance of speed limit signs (particularly in 20mph zones).

Ah, I see. That's an answer to a different question really. You didn't need your belated realisation that pedal cycles are vehicles to argue for these points.

In any case, the current road traffic laws have been in existence in one way or another for over a century, prior to which there were laws governing non motorised traffic. The law on road traffic is designed to protect all road users from each other, and has evolved to accommodate the ever increasing presence of the motor car on the road.

But to take each of your points in turn. Cyclists commit offences if they are impaired by alcohol. Cyclists are also responsible for accidents they cause.
Regarding the speed issue, 20mph is about the only speed limit that we might regularly exceed, even then only by a few mph. It's often self policed (speed bumps). If a cyclist rides carelessly or dangerously, he commits offences anyway, so there is no real need for the offence to exist for cyclists.

Bearing in mind that the momentum of a cyclist at 25mph may be 1200Kgm/s compared to a car at 20mph being 15000Kgm/s.

reason2

Because the pro cycling brigade will always defend their behaviour.. and always blame the driver.. i spent a day last week at various lights and recorded cyclists behaviours.

86% of cyclists went straight through red lights.. nearly half of those did so without looking around them.

7 cyclists came from off a pavement on to a main road with out looking, causing the cars to brake suddenly.. which could cause a potentially dangerous accident while they cycled off.

3 cyclists on one junction (in the space of 15 minutes) hit pedestrians whilst cycling on the pavement.

i saw 3 groups of cyclists causually stroll a long 2 or 3 a breast on a main road...

i will never ever understand cyclists argument of "yes but its mroe dangerous if you do it"

Bull.. if you cause a pile up you might be safe but the children in the cars you pull out infront of might not be.

i find the majority of cyclists selfish, arrogant, feel like they have god given rights to do as they please and IF they cause an accident, THEY might not be hurt so badly, but other people might be.. the expense to the damage they cause might be.

They need to be insured.. they need to pass a cycling test and road laws test..

i asked one cyclist why he went through multiple red lights.. and his answer was simply "because i can, what are you going to do about it"

that is the general attitude of cyclists **In my experience**

Johno100

brat wrote: »

But to take each of your points in turn.

OK.

brat wrote: »

Cyclists commit offences if they are impaired by alcohol.

All well and good, but a bit hard to prove when they are not required to provide a specimen of breath or complete a roadside impairment test. And remind me what the penalty is for the cyclist?

brat wrote: »

Cyclists are also responsible for accidents they cause.

That's if they deem to stop or there happens to be a uniformed police officer there who can compel them to. And of course with assumed/presumed civil liability being fought for by cycling advocates the level playing field of blame could be tilted away from cyclists.

brat wrote: »

Regarding the speed issue, 20mph is about the only speed limit that we might regularly exceed, even then only by a few mph. It's often self policed (speed bumps). If a cyclist rides carelessly or dangerously, he commits offences anyway, so there is no real need for the offence to exist for cyclists.

And that is problem that has already been highlighted in areas where 20mph limits/zones have been introduced. The Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Commissioner Sir Graham Bright has already said in respect of Cambridge:-

Now we've got a new issue. Now that we've got a 20mph limit in the city, it's more than possible. I've seen it myself, by driving at 20, you get cyclists overtaking you.

And the high priest of the '20 is plenty' campaign, Rod King, described cyclists who exceeded 20mph limits as anti-social.

Community and society generally sees the danger primarily coming from motor vehicles rather than vulnerable cyclists [but] I think we should all be aware of our actions and how they are perceived by others.

My feeling, as a cyclist myself, is that where a community has set 20mph as a speed limit in order to protect vulnerable road users, then while technically that does not apply to a cyclist, I would have thought cycling at what is above the speed limit for motor vehicles could be considered as anti-social.

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/cyclists-exceeding-20mph-speed-limit-labelled-anti-social-38923/

Perhaps we should bring in the equivalent to a Section 59 warning for errant cyclists, second one and the bike gets crushed.

brat wrote: »

Bearing in mind that the momentum of a cyclist at 25mph may be 1200Kgm/s compared to a car at 20mph being 15000Kgm/s.

That's all down to the laws of physics, something even legions of Lycra Taliban won't be able to alter.

Avoriaz

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I doubt he felt very safe. Undertaking a cyclist in a small car is your "crowning glory".

Can you imagine how dull the rest of his/her life must be if that is their crowning glory?

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

OK.
All well and good, but a bit hard to prove when they are not required to provide a specimen of breath or complete a roadside impairment test. And remind me what the penalty is for the cyclist?

A police officer will offer his opinion on drunkenness, along with other available evidence. Easy, and it works. The penalty is lower than that for motorists, reflecting the many thousandfold lower risk they pose.

Johno100 wrote: »

That's if they deem to stop or there happens to be a uniformed police officer there who can compel them to. And of course with assumed/presumed civil liability being fought for by cycling advocates the level playing field of blame could be tilted away from cyclists.

I recall someone on a motoring forum a while back saying that two thirds of RTCs involve a motorist failing to stop, so I'd suggest the bigger issue of concern is right there.
If a cyclist hits a stationary car that's parked properly, he is completely liable for the damage. There's no presumption that a completely innocent motorist should assume any liability in a collision where the other parties are identified.

Johno100 wrote: »

And that is problem that has already been highlighted in areas where 20mph limits/zones have been introduced. The Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Commissioner Sir Graham Bright has already said in respect of Cambridge:-

And the high priest of the '20 is plenty' campaign, Rod King, described cyclists who exceeded 20mph limits as anti-social.

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/cyclists-exceeding-20mph-speed-limit-labelled-anti-social-38923/

We work with the law we have, and should work within the spirit of the law. As Solon said, "Laws are for the guidance of wise men, but the blind obedience of fools". In the context of driving offences, and in particular the marginal remote enforcement of speed limits" that wise tenet has been largely taken out of the hand of the compliant, would be law abiding motorist, but cyclists can still exercise their common sense in respect of appropriate speed. A cyclist doing 25 in a 20 may be antisocial in certain circumstances, at other time certainly not. My 20mph excesses on my bike are generally an attempt to keep up with the flow of motor vehicles. The other day, I was cycling at 24mph in the 20mph limit, and was overtaken by a group of motorists, so putting 15 times the momentum forces along a 20mph road has to be 15 times more anti social, don't you think?

Johno100 wrote: »

Perhaps we should bring in the equivalent to a Section 59 warning for errant cyclists, second one and the bike gets crushed.

Motorists can get their cars back, why would you want bikes to be crushed?

Johno100 wrote: »

...something even legions of Lycra Taliban won't be able to alter.

Ah, now I understand...

brat

reason2 wrote: »

Because the pro cycling brigade will always defend their behaviour.. and always blame the driver.. i spent a day last week at various lights and recorded cyclists behaviours.

Really!!! :rotfl: