Laws on 'dangerous cyclists' to be updated

[oyster]

Nomme de Plum said:

stargazer30 said:

As a cyclist I have no problem with this law. I do think its a bit pointless though, given the risk posed to people by pedal cycles in tiny compared to cars, and trucks.

It does seem a bit odd to spend parliamentary time to legislate for a death rate to pedestrians, 3 annually which is about the same as being hit by lightening. Unlike the 5 a day killed by a vehicle or 30,000 annually killed or injured by a vehicle.

In principle I have no issue with the legislation just the lack of priority.

It's red meat.

The bait has been thrown.

And the Telegraph have already picked it up and are creating some extra chum to throw in the water.

[Mr Penguin]

Nomme de Plum said:

Hardly random and It indicates a lack of competent prioritisation with the sole intent of appeasing a certain sector of the electorate. Whilst 3 deaths are 3 too many it pales into insignificance compared to over circa 1800.

It isn't a time intensive piece of legislation and was a straightforward amendment by a backbench MP (IDS) to another bill. Labour agreed in principle and only abstained because they want to see the detail first.
It's a good thing if it encourages cyclists to ride more safely and considerately.

[Randy Winkman]

oyster said:

Nomme de Plum said:

stargazer30 said:

As a cyclist I have no problem with this law. I do think its a bit pointless though, given the risk posed to people by pedal cycles in tiny compared to cars, and trucks.

It does seem a bit odd to spend parliamentary time to legislate for a death rate to pedestrians, 3 annually which is about the same as being hit by lightening. Unlike the 5 a day killed by a vehicle or 30,000 annually killed or injured by a vehicle.

In principle I have no issue with the legislation just the lack of priority.

It's red meat.

The bait has been thrown.

And the Telegraph have already picked it up and are creating some extra chum to throw in the water.

Apparently the Mail are onto this stuff too at the moment. (My mum told me.)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13415333/...

It's ironic that the story starts "How many more deaths ....... " and then focuses on a (very sad) story from 2016.

[Nomme de Plum]

Paul Dishman said:

Nomme de Plum said:

Paul Dishman said:

Crippo said:

Everyone should own a bicycle and be encouraged to use it for fitness, fun and nipping to the shops or dare I say it even riding to work or schools. Once you have ridden a bike then you may comment other wise I have heard too much from peop,le who haven’t ridden a bike for 20+ years who haven't a clue

That reads like you want to make cycling compulsory.

No it doesn't unless you interpret words like 'should' and 'encouraged' as mandatory instructions.

A not unreasonable interpretation.

We gave our bikes away a few years ago because we never used them. We’d moved closer to the centre of town so it was just as easy to walk and my wife decided she was too “ wobbly ” to continue to cycle. I occasionally consider buying myself a bike, but there’s no fun in riding around on my own so it’ll probably just sit in the garage like the old ones did.

My cohort of a mixed group 60-70+ year olds still enjoy our bikes. We are not full on lycra types though and a few of the girls ones have baskets on the front. Perhaps because I come from the West Country hills have never really phased me.

[Paul Dishman]

Nomme de Plum said:

Paul Dishman said:

Nomme de Plum said:

Paul Dishman said:

Crippo said:

Everyone should own a bicycle and be encouraged to use it for fitness, fun and nipping to the shops or dare I say it even riding to work or schools. Once you have ridden a bike then you may comment other wise I have heard too much from peop,le who haven’t ridden a bike for 20+ years who haven't a clue

That reads like you want to make cycling compulsory.

No it doesn't unless you interpret words like 'should' and 'encouraged' as mandatory instructions.

A not unreasonable interpretation.

We gave our bikes away a few years ago because we never used them. We’d moved closer to the centre of town so it was just as easy to walk and my wife decided she was too “ wobbly ” to continue to cycle. I occasionally consider buying myself a bike, but there’s no fun in riding around on my own so it’ll probably just sit in the garage like the old ones did.

My cohort of a mixed group 60-70+ year olds still enjoy our bikes. We are not full on lycra types though and a few of the girls ones have baskets on the front. Perhaps because I come from the West Country hills have never really phased me.

We do a lot of walking to keep ourselves fit and healthy, you can't really avoid hills around Devon so they're a useful test of fitness. It was the wobbling rather than the gradients that worried her, I've never seen anyone ride a bike like it but she managed a tandem ok when we hired one for the Camel trail.

I used to cycle a lot when I lived in Tintagel, but out of necessity more than pleasure really. Gave it up after learning to drive and getting a car-driving is still an absolute joy for me, another reason to live in the West Country. We get free bus passes now and with discount the train is cheap enough for the odd excursion if we fancy a change.

[hidetheelephants]

sugerbear said:

Meanwhile…

Tribute to 'beautiful' baby who died in church car park https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqvnvpxejv8o

Note.. the headline is never about the driver.. always about the “car” doing the damage in an attempt to disassociate the driver from any blame.

Special sky fairies, very weird tone to the news segment on that. How the fk is a 1 year old free range in a car park? Even more weird comment that the driver was unharmed; they were driving a land rover and ran over a 1 yr old child, they may not have noticed it happening.

[Electro1980]

Nomme de Plum said:

No it doesn't unless you interpret words like 'should' and 'encouraged' as mandatory instructions.

Using the same interpretation people use for the cycling sections of the Highway Code.

[heebeegeetee]

hidetheelephants said:

Special sky fairies, very weird tone to the news segment on that. How the fk is a 1 year old free range in a car park? Even more weird comment that the driver was unharmed; they were driving a land rover and ran over a 1 yr old child, they may not have noticed it happening.

Free range in a car park? How does the child get to the car in the first place? How does a driver fail to see a buggy? Given that the main function of every car park is to allow people walk to and from parked car, were there any safe areas for people to do so, because most car parks don't have them.

[heebeegeetee]

redback911 said:

This also reminds me of the tragic incident in Wimbledon last July, where two children were killed when a Land Rover crashed through the school fence. Someone was arrested and bailed, yet almost a year later, there has been no conviction. Recent reports cite a lack of investigators as the reason for the slow progress. Perhaps we should focus on improving funding for the police force first, rather than introducing spurious new laws.

It's been dropped, hasn't it? The driver is obviously very well connected. The media will froth for a week over cyclists but both the police and the media has dropped the case of the Range Rover driver who killed two children who were "free range" in their school.

[hidetheelephants]

heebeegeetee said:

redback911 said:

This also reminds me of the tragic incident in Wimbledon last July, where two children were killed when a Land Rover crashed through the school fence. Someone was arrested and bailed, yet almost a year later, there has been no conviction. Recent reports cite a lack of investigators as the reason for the slow progress. Perhaps we should focus on improving funding for the police force first, rather than introducing spurious new laws.

It's been dropped, hasn't it? The driver is obviously very well connected. The media will froth for a week over cyclists but both the police and the media has dropped the case of the Range Rover driver who killed two children who were "free range" in their school.

According to the internet the driver has been released but it's still under investigation.

[heebeegeetee]

JackJarvis said:

I disagree, it's just good old fashioned whataboutery.

Car drivers kill more people and always will, so let's just completely forget about cyclists and let them do as they please.

Also, why does it need to be about only deaths? As a pedestrian who works in a city centre I've experienced and witnessed several collisions and near misses caused by cyclists ignoring red lights. None of them were likely to result in a death, but discouraging poor cycling by tightening laws up doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

Also just to point out, I love cycling. I find it much more enjoyable than driving these days but I'd love to see the standard of road cycling improved.

(Sorry to go on)
But surely you can see this is just froth for the fools? What possible point can there be to tightening up laws that aren't enforced in the first place? Change the laws as much as you like, but when there are virtually no police on the streets who is going to enforce them? This is just froth to make the fools think that the govt gives a toss. At a time when the prison service is in state of collapse, along with everything else, they're going to introduce life sentences for errant cyclists?

--

Just as an aside, I looked up the lorry driver who ran into that mini bus on the motorway some years ago and killed 8. Yep,he got 4 months more than the pedestrian who may or may not have pushed a cyclist into the road. (Tbf the other trucker involved got more, but it wasn't actually him that drove into a stationary minibus).

But I repeat, as motorists we get access to a light touch policing and sentencing that nobody else gets. I maintain that treating cyclists like drivers would actually be counter productive.

[carlo996]

Harpoon said:

Rufus Stone said:

Steve vRS said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/16/compet...

Yes, there’s an agenda here. The Telegraph is publishing these type of stories more frequently.

I would call 52 in a 20 zone irresponsible.

I would call it absolute bks and st stirring, gutter press reporting from the Telegraph.

Yep.

But it does seem to easily identify the types who feel the need to hate other types of road user. Given the general issues with both cars and motorcycles you would think everyone would understand...but no, always 'cyclists'. Ho hum.