We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Motorists, what to do about cyclists who constantly break the high way code???
Comments
-
And remove all evidence of his own idiotic driving too.RichardD1970 wrote: »Get a dash cam and then you post it all on YouTube and show everyone what a bunch of idiots these cyclists are.
(Just be sure to edit it carefully to remove the numerous idiot car/taxi/bus/van/lorry drivers, oh and pedestrians.)
0 -
trinidadone wrote: »..There was one cyclist who told the offiers he has had many fines for breaking red lights, which questions weather the enforcement is enough of a penalty???
Surely that comes under criminal damage.
:whistle:0 -
Is this allowed for comment? I'm a cyclist but you don't seem to respond to their comments
http://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/cycling/furious-pedestrian-cyclist-races-through-crossing/
Good on the pedestrian for challenging
That isn't quite as clear cut as you might think.
Yes, the cyclist should have stopped but look at the crossing.
From the Highway Code: 'A zebra crossing with a central island is two separate crossings'
(How many of you knew that? You do now)
The pedestrian in question walked straight out onto the second crossing. Perhaps he should have paused on the central island, as the pedestrians in front of him did, and waited until oncoming traffic had stopped for him. Perhaps all vehicular traffic had already stopped (as had whoever was filming the incident) but he failed to notice or consider the approaching cyclist.
If he hadn't then stopped and turned back to confront the cyclist, that cyclist would have passed some feet to his rear and nowhere near any other pedestrians.
On balance I think the cyclist was far more in the wrong than the pedestrian but I don't think the pedestrian's actions were perfect.
Neither of them took sufficient account of the complexities and risks of a double zebra crossing and busy traffic. The cyclist was probably riding a bit too fast approaching a crossing. He should have been able to stop beside whoever was filming the incident.
The pedestrian should have been a bit more cautious and more aware of what was coming from his left. It is all very well being in the right, but sometimes being in the right can lead to you being injured or worse.
PS: For trinidadone's benefit, I am a motorist, a cyclist and a pedestrian, but not all at the same time. 0 -
Hang on a minute - that van driver quote could have some truth in it - I believe that some motorists hold that opinion. If a cyclist runs a red light and is photographed doing so - they are extremely unlikely to be identified and ticketed, whereas a motorist has (should have) a rather obvious identifier on their vehicle. It's not a million miles away from the pro-cyclist opinion expressed in filtering debates that motorists are just jealous because they can't bypass the queue at will.
Shall we have the debate about different types of passing a red light now, folks?
hello london, and thank you for your contribution. I am sure you will agree, all road users MUST sop at a red light, so no debate for meTrinidad - I have a number of needs. Don't shoot me down if i get something wrong!!0 -
trinidadone wrote: »hello london, and thank you for your contribution. I am sure you will agree, all road users MUST sop at a red light, so no debate for me
What have spilled liquids got to do with it?
Are you confused with this thread?
0 -
so why is the penalty not in line with the actual risk?
The penalty should be a fixed and equal for all, death by careless riding or death by careless driving, ditto red light jumping etc
The issue with this post is the OP has already decided the conclusion even before the post was made and just wants "evidence" to back his own view up while ignoring everything that contradicts his incorrect viewSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Hang on a minute - that van driver quote could have some truth in it - I believe that some motorists hold that opinion. If a cyclist runs a red light and is photographed doing so - they are extremely unlikely to be identified and ticketed, whereas a motorist has (should have) a rather obvious identifier on their vehicle. It's not a million miles away from the pro-cyclist opinion expressed in filtering debates that motorists are just jealous because they can't bypass the queue at will.
Shall we have the debate about different types of passing a red light now, folks?
You could consider the boy racers who take the front plate off the car and put it in the windscreen so they can speed past the front facing ANPR / average speed cameras and just claim it fell off if stopped by the police. I assume they don't bother with the rear as they can't flip it over when approaching a cameraSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
The van driver quote was cherry picked to support the ops ignorant, blinkered view. This has never been a debate because the op is not interested in or capable of debating.Hang on a minute - that van driver quote could have some truth in it - I believe that some motorists hold that opinion. If a cyclist runs a red light and is photographed doing so - they are extremely unlikely to be identified and ticketed, whereas a motorist has (should have) a rather obvious identifier on their vehicle. It's not a million miles away from the pro-cyclist opinion expressed in filtering debates that motorists are just jealous because they can't bypass the queue at will.
Shall we have the debate about different types of passing a red light now, folks?0 -
I believe the penalty is the same for red light offences. A maximum £1000 fine plus six penalty points for motorists and cyclists. The police have the discretion to prosecute rather than issue a fixed penalty which presumably they do based on the actual circumstances of the offence.The penalty should be a fixed and equal for all, death by careless riding or death by careless driving, ditto red light jumping etc
No idea why the fixed penalty fines are different. Possibly due to the lower potential to cause harm.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards