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.
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
Comments
-
Maybe it's because pedestrians know it's an offence to cycle on a pavement
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike
Having said that I fully agree with the comments in the link about it being safer for some cyclists.
Police recognise the need for cycle safety when looking at bikes on pavements and whether to prosecute
https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/support-for-police-discretion-when-responding-to-people-cycling-on-the-pavementSam 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 -
Many pavements are dual-purpose (pedestrian & cycle) in my town.
Of course, the impatient cyclists who can't bear to wait behind a pedestrian who is going slower than they want to won't use them.0 -
Well, initially, you would just need to concentrate on the ones who are caught doing something wrong, and then chuck them in clink if they don't have the cover.The cost of enforcing this could be prohibitive as it would require some sort of registration plate for the bicycle that could be detected by anpr cameras - to be totally fair pedestrians should also be required to wear number plates and hold insurance as often they will simply walk into the road (often drunk) and cause an accident.0 -
One trend I've noticed recently is teenagers doing wheelies along the road; a few weeks ago one was doing them along an NSL dual-carriageway in front of me.Some however are idiots.
That is probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen on the roads.
I feel sorry for the driver who runs one of them over when they lose balance or something.0 -
Mine was a general comment aimed at the words, rather than at you personally, so sorry for that!Where did I say that I was impatient? I never pass a pedestrian unless they are a) aware that I am there and b) I have enough room to do so. However, when on a shared path it is just plain common decency to respect all users and common sense to be aware of others using the path.
Here lies the biggest problem, many pedestrians believe that cyclists should be on the road and many drivers believe that cyclists should be anywhere but on the road.
The point was that there is a speed disparity between cycles and pedestrians and I'm not sure that it is the pedestrian's task to keep checking over their shoulders for approaching bikes.
If the dual-purpose pavement is too narrow to pass safely, which is the case with many, then perhaps it's questionable as to whether they are fit for purpose.0 -
So these "impatient" cyclists choose to use the roads where they are burdened with impatient motorists who can't bear to wait, such as yourself who think cyclists should be banned from nsl roads.Many pavements are dual-purpose (pedestrian & cycle) in my town.
Of course, the impatient cyclists who can't bear to wait behind a pedestrian who is going slower than they want to won't use them.0 -
Many pavements are dual-purpose (pedestrian & cycle) in my town.
Of course, the impatient cyclists who can't bear to wait behind a pedestrian who is going slower than they want to won't use them.
That is why the general guidance is that if you are doing 18mph on the bike you should be using the road, regardless of whether a cycle lane is there. The below is a national archive consultation which states as much (not a law of course but general guidance).
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+tf_/http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688
Interesting case below which resulted in a ruling that a cyclist in the middle of the lane, even with a cycle lane nearby, was not blocking traffic.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/6303427.stmSam 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 -
Police recognise the need for cycle safety when looking at bikes on pavements and whether to prosecute
https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/support-for-police-discretion-when-responding-to-people-cycling-on-the-pavement
As it should be - and I haven't argued with that. But, it's still an offence and in London, anyway, there are a number of Uber cyclists who aren't on the pavement because it's the "safe place to be".0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.8K Spending & Discounts
- 242.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 618.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.2K Life & Family
- 255.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards