Best way to identify a cyclist

ThorOdinson

You were in the car and just let him do it?

Maybe you can see the problem.

There is a lot of enforcement for drivers though. They even have cameras that can spot it, as well as not wearing seat belt.

rollingmoon

Exodi said:

Just from my layperson perspective, I'd ask why you needed a courtesy car at all. Was the car undrivable, I'd be suprised by that?

I'd imagine it was undriveable while in the body shop being repaired.

sand_hun

ThorOdinson said:

You were in the car and just let him do it?

Maybe you can see the problem.

There is a lot of enforcement for drivers though. They even have cameras that can spot it, as well as not wearing seat belt.

What was I supposed to do - grab the phone from his hand? I had a word with him and told it was unacceptable behaviour.

Despite there being some enforcement for drivers, most law breaking isn't punished. Consider how many people text at the wheel - most are never caught. Add to that offences like tailgating, breaking speed limits, jumping red lights. The police (or cameras) can't possibly act upon all of these things.

ThorOdinson

sand_hun said:

ThorOdinson said:

You were in the car and just let him do it?

Maybe you can see the problem.

There is a lot of enforcement for drivers though. They even have cameras that can spot it, as well as not wearing seat belt.

What was I supposed to do - grab the phone from his hand? I had a word with him and told it was unacceptable behaviour.

Despite there being some enforcement for drivers, most law breaking isn't punished. Consider how many people text at the wheel - most are never caught. Add to that offences like tailgating, breaking speed limits, jumping red lights. The police (or cameras) can't possibly act upon all of these things.

If I was in a car being driven by someone texting I'd treat it as an emergency and tell them to stop immediately so I could get out.

On Saturday I saw a cyclist who was making a phone call while riding on the road. I joined the back of a queue at the lights and he was coming up behind, deja vu... But then he went up on the pavement, swerved around a jogger, and crossed by the lights. Got it all on camera, but no hits on Yandex this time.

MacPingu1986

ThorOdinson said:

On Saturday I saw a cyclist who was making a phone call while riding on the road. I joined the back of a queue at the lights and he was coming up behind, deja vu... But then he went up on the pavement, swerved around a jogger, and crossed by the lights. Got it all on camera, but no hits on Yandex this time.

What exactly is your point here? We know that some people on all modes of transport commit offences of varying degrees. On my cycle commute this morning I was passed by numerous speeding motor vehicles and saw plenty of motor vehicles run reds (both offences which are *much* more dangerous that the one you have described). 

ThorOdinson

MacPingu1986 said:

ThorOdinson said:

On Saturday I saw a cyclist who was making a phone call while riding on the road. I joined the back of a queue at the lights and he was coming up behind, deja vu... But then he went up on the pavement, swerved around a jogger, and crossed by the lights. Got it all on camera, but no hits on Yandex this time.

What exactly is your point here? We know that some people on all modes of transport commit offences of varying degrees. On my cycle commute this morning I was passed by numerous speeding motor vehicles and saw plenty of motor vehicles run reds (both offences which are *much* more dangerous that the one you have described). 

Weird, it's extremely rare to see cars running red lights around here, not least because there are often cameras that will catch them doing it.

The point is that motorists have to pass a test and their licence can be revoked if they don't behave. They have to identify themselves, and running away from the scene of an accident is a crime that is regularly prosecuted. The same cannot be said of cyclists, despite them clearly being able to injure people and cause significant amounts of damage.

Looking here and on Reddit, it's clear that a lot of cyclists feel that the laws don't apply to them, and they are free to take risks because there won't be consequences. They are not entirely wrong.

MacPingu1986

ThorOdinson said:

MacPingu1986 said:

ThorOdinson said:

On Saturday I saw a cyclist who was making a phone call while riding on the road. I joined the back of a queue at the lights and he was coming up behind, deja vu... But then he went up on the pavement, swerved around a jogger, and crossed by the lights. Got it all on camera, but no hits on Yandex this time.

What exactly is your point here? We know that some people on all modes of transport commit offences of varying degrees. On my cycle commute this morning I was passed by numerous speeding motor vehicles and saw plenty of motor vehicles run reds (both offences which are *much* more dangerous that the one you have described). 

Weird, it's extremely rare to see cars running red lights around here, not least because there are often cameras that will catch them doing it.

The point is that motorists have to pass a test and their licence can be revoked if they don't behave. They have to identify themselves, and running away from the scene of an accident is a crime that is regularly prosecuted. The same cannot be said of cyclists, despite them clearly being able to injure people and cause significant amounts of damage.

Looking here and on Reddit, it's clear that a lot of cyclists feel that the laws don't apply to them, and they are free to take risks because there won't be consequences. They are not entirely wrong.

Not weird at all - only a tiny % of traffic lights are set up with cameras so it's very easy for motor vehicles to run reds - there's even common driving slang for the most dangerous form of red light running - "amber gambling". 

To go back to basics - we regulate powerful multi-ton heavy machinery differently from bicycles because even a small car is c15x the weight of a bicycle and rider, with 200x the power and poses exponentially higher risks of injury and damage to the public - as sadly born out by decades and decades of statistics and analysis across the UK, Europe and beyond. That's why motor vehicles are regulated more strictly - different risks, different regulation. Any person on a bicycle who commits a crime can be investigated by the police in exactly the same way than anyone on foot commits a crime.

Do some people on bicycles commit crimes? Yes of course they do because people on bicycles are just people, and people commit all sorts of offenses, for all sorts of reason - eg: dft traffic analysis shows over 80%+ of drivers speed when able in 20mph zones (an offense *far* more dangerous than almost anything could do on a bicycle).

Herzlos

ThorOdinson said:

MacPingu1986 said:

ThorOdinson said:

On Saturday I saw a cyclist who was making a phone call while riding on the road. I joined the back of a queue at the lights and he was coming up behind, deja vu... But then he went up on the pavement, swerved around a jogger, and crossed by the lights. Got it all on camera, but no hits on Yandex this time.

What exactly is your point here? We know that some people on all modes of transport commit offences of varying degrees. On my cycle commute this morning I was passed by numerous speeding motor vehicles and saw plenty of motor vehicles run reds (both offences which are *much* more dangerous that the one you have described). 

Weird, it's extremely rare to see cars running red lights around here, not least because there are often cameras that will catch them doing it.

Here it's just as common as phone use; I see red light jumping by cars constantly. But then I can only think of maybe 3 red light cameras in the city and none in the suburbs.

I'm guessing from your comments that you're in central London, to have such a high number of red light cameras and bicycle couriers?

ThorOdinson said:

The point is that motorists have to pass a test and their licence can be revoked if they don't behave. They have to identify themselves, and running away from the scene of an accident is a crime that is regularly prosecuted. The same cannot be said of cyclists, despite them clearly being able to injure people and cause significant amounts of damage..

It also cannot be said of pedestrians, which are closer to cyclists than drivers.

Cyclists should have some basic training - do they still do that in school? - but they don't cause anything like the damage that cars do and aren't as difficult to operate.

That said I don't think there's any mechanism to ban someone from cycling but I also don't think there's ever actually been any need.

The solution to your "cyclist problem" is probably just better cycling infrastructure - giving them clean and safe paths away from cars. It'll be safer and more efficient for them, and means you won't have to see them.

MusicLover1357

Contacting the police is the first thing I'd do too. But there's a real chance you won't see a dime of compensation. 
 I want to know what happened in the end!

outtatune

Forcing burdens onto cyclists like mandatory insurance and so on will simply make driving comparatively more attractive, so any reduction in the already tiny danger posed by cyclists would be more than offset by the increased actual danger posed by drivers.

I'd have thought that was obvious, but apparently not.