Cyclist hit and run

Johno100

AndyBSG wrote: »

Yet they manage to do so perfectly in Holland...

Less than 1% of the annual transport budget in the UK is spent on cycling facilities, deapite recent reports showing that cyclists make up 24% of all London rush hour traffic.

The Government are actually going to spend more money on refurbishing just one tube station(Bank) in London than they are planning to spend on cycling facilities for the next 5 years.

Despite this when the Government haprs on about budget cuts due to austerity you'll find it's the cycling and pedestrian budgets that get cut long before the budgets for motorised traffic

And outside of the London bubble, here in the regions, in my area less than 2% of commutes are by bike and that figure is reducing decade on decade. Yet at the height of austerity the Westminster government doles out 10's of millions to local councils to spend on facilities for these non-existent cyclists.

Herzlos

facade wrote: »

Maybe the S172 penalty should be a minimum of 6 points, and a maximum of whatever the penalty would be for the original offence, or seize & crush the vehicle maybe???

I think that's the only workable option; otherwise taking an S172 is always going to be the easy way out.

JP08

Johno100 wrote: »

And outside of the London bubble, here in the regions, in my area less than 2% of commutes are by bike and that figure is reducing decade on decade. Yet at the height of austerity the Westminster government doles out 10's of millions to local councils to spend on facilities for these non-existent cyclists.

For my local station - rough estimate the cycle:drive ratio is approximately 1:3

Of course, charging £7.70 a day to park might have something to do with that ...

Johno100

facade wrote: »

Maybe the S172 penalty should be a minimum of 6 points, and a maximum of whatever the penalty would be for the original offence, or seize & crush the vehicle maybe???

And how'd that work with a hire vehicle such as in this case, doubt the likes of Avis or Enterprise would be too happy to have one of their hire vehicles towed away and returned as a cube of scrap because of the actions of one of their hirers (or a 3rd party) and who's going to take the points?

AlanCarter

facade wrote: »

You can't convict someone on lack of evidence that they weren't there which is all credit card transactions etc. provide.

The problem that I see is the message going out that if you keep your mouth shut you can take a 6 point hit for S172 rather than risk a conviction for careless/dangerous/leaving the scene etc. which could have been a much worse outcome for the driver.

Only the keeper has to demonstrate due diligence, the speculative S172 sent to the partner can be relied to with "I don't know, and cannot provide further information as I wasn't there"

Maybe the S172 penalty should be a minimum of 6 points, and a maximum of whatever the penalty would be for the original offence, or seize & crush the vehicle maybe???

It is and it is higher than the starting point for any of the offences the driver in this case has committed.

Johno100

JP08 wrote: »

For my local station - rough estimate the cycle:drive ratio is approximately 1:3

Of course, charging £7.70 a day to park might have something to do with that ...

Or more likely being in the Cambridge area, cycling central isn't it?

JP08

Not quite Cambridge - about 20 miles west of there ...

AndyBSG

Johno100 wrote: »

Or more likely being in the Cambridge area, cycling central isn't it?

You say that like Cambridge's cycle friendly policy is something that is an aberration to be ignored rather than the model all other cities should adopt?

Or should we frown on somewhere that encourages and priorities healthy, environmentally friendly transport methods that cause less traffic congestion over motor vehicle use?

facade

movilogo wrote: »

^^this


It irritates me when I see cyclists are driving on road instead of using cycle paths besides which clearly exists.

Have you ever tried to use an Urban cyclepath?
After wheezing up to a reasonable speed, you have to stop every 25 yards to cross a junction that if you stay on the road you can wheeze & wobble past.

Pedestrians can't hear you coming, so unless you tinkle your little bell permanently (and then half of then are playing "Tunes" so loud they couldn't hear a jet landing behind them) you have to wobble along at walking pace to not collide with them.
If you do tinkle your little bell all the time they think you are rude & aggressive.

They are fine if they follow a completely different route to the road, but when they are just the footpath with cycle signs every few yards they are not worth the bother.

JP08

To be honest (and I say this as both a car enthusiast and a hobby cyclist) in traffic terms Cambridge IS an aberration and should be ignored as such, rather than be used as a model for handling the needs of either.

Driving in Cambridge is crap - cycling in Cambridge is crap (and yes, I lived there). The cities' roads are just too small for purpose. The best thing Cambridge has ever done in terms of transport is to invest heavily in Park and Ride.