Changes in the Law to make cycling safer for all
Options
Comments
-
Also the laws in this country are sufficient to prosecute drivers who don't see a fluorescent jacket wearing cyclist in daylight and a fluorescent jacket, fluorescent bag-cover cyclist who also has lights in the night.
...but I'd rather *prevent* someone from being hit by a car than *prosecute* the person that hits them.
As you say, having to spend some hours on a bike wouldn't make a difference to everyone...but it's just one piece in the jigsaw and if it saves even one life, it would be worth it.0 -
In terms of “policing”, then in my proposal for fixed penalty points, I had envisaged this was only applicable where a severe accident had happened, and where the Police would most often already have been called to attend. But I take your point about the word “mandatory” … what I meant was…
For motorists, there should be a Fixed Penalty point offence (x1 minimum point) if they were deemed at fault by the Police attending a severe accident (where the motorist caused an injury with a cyclist or pedestrian)
My concern is that too many motorists now seem to be adopting the same attitude of too many cyclists… and following the same reckless and selfish belief that if “Nothing happened.” (however close a near miss was, or going through a red on a busy junction) what’s wrong with their driving (or cylcing) they say.
DBF
0 -
All cycles to have registration number plates so that the rider can be idendified.
I then confidently predict the number of offences committed by cyclists would fall dramatically as the risk of being caught rises.
Might be a silly idea, but because the chances of getting caught are slim, some cyclists take that risk.0 -
Actively policing current laws would be more cost effective.All cycles to have registration number plates so that the rider can be idendified.
I then confidently predict the number of offences committed by cyclists would fall dramatically as the risk of being caught rises.0 -
Norman_Castle wrote: »Actively policing current laws would be more cost effective.
Agreed, BUT that means more police on the roads/streets and we know that just isn't going to happen (unfortunately) cos everyone knows it's just speed that kills not dangerous/careless driving/riding/cycling etc so just having speed cameras will solve everything (sarcastic head off LOL)0 -
Agreed, BUT that means more police on the roads/streets and we know that just isn't going to happen (unfortunately) cos everyone knows it's just speed that kills not dangerous/careless driving/riding/cycling etc so just having speed cameras will solve everything (sarcastic head off LOL)
All that needs to happen is the country to "man up" a bit and start imposing worthwhile fines on people - that at least cover the costs of the people enforcing it. Trouble is, most of the issues I'd like to see people caught for would be a £60 fine, £30 fine or even less...By the time some people have appealed, the admin's all done, records kept etc - it's just not cost effective for these crimes to be picked up. Raise the fines to £300 + the cost of any unsuccessful appeal and I could make a mint for the country just driving around all day and catching little things:
Cyclists running red lights.
Drivers cutting up cyclists.
Cyclists with no lights.
Drivers using fog lights on clear evenings.
Obscured number plates.
Cyclists / drivers with unsuitable loads.
Drivers undertaking.
Drivers littering.
As Norman said, we've got all the laws we need, we just need to be able to afford to enforce them.
(as an aside, just think of the savings to the taxpayer that could be made by giving a few pubs a hefty fine for continuing to serve someone who'd had too much already...)0 -
I didn't realise that littering was a motoring offence?
BTW undertaking is not an offence. You would need to be able to prove driving without due care and attention as a minimum.
Please don't 'invent' offences
A simpler change in the law is to drop any reference to motor vehicle user or similar wording and change it to road user. That way you have a level playing field. If it has wheels and is used on a road then the user falls under the relevant law/act/statute.0 -
I didn't realise that littering was a motoring offence?
BTW undertaking is not an offence. You would need to be able to prove driving without due care and attention as a minimum.
Please don't 'invent' offences
Did I say littering was a motoring offence?
I'm not inventing anything. You can presently be fined for all the things I mentioned....Agreed that undertaking is a little grey area at times, but try passing a police car in the inside lane on a dual carriageway and cut in in front of them...see how "grey" they think that is....0 -
Idiophreak wrote: »Did I say littering was a motoring offence?
I'm not inventing anything. You can presently be fined for all the things I mentioned....Agreed that undertaking is a little grey area at times, but try passing a police car in the inside lane on a dual carriageway and cut in in front of them...see how "grey" they think that is....
This is quite funny though (PS LOADS of swearing in there - don't watch if you are easily offended)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5dL4DPm-DE&feature=share0 -
This is quite funny though (PS LOADS of swearing in there - don't watch if you are easily offended)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5dL4DPm-DE&feature=share
that's amazing! 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards