Author Topic: What changes would you make to cycling law?  (Read 4497 times)

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #25 on: September 21, 2017, 02:57:33 pm »
only 1 colleague has raised this subject today - he'd like to see a clampdown on dangerously bright  ill-aimed lights on bikes.

[and I wouldn't argue with this!]

Same here. Rules on car lighting are well defined with regards to the height and shape of the beam for this reason, and with bike lights becoming ever more powerful, tighter controls are becoming necessary. Something along German lines would be a good model to follow.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2017, 03:06:26 pm »
Agreed on the lighting.

When I was still regularly cycle commuting, encountering fellow commuters on the path with badly-adjusted ultra bright lights was a regular problem (as in, more than once every trip home). Usually I'd have to come to a complete halt until they had passed.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #27 on: September 21, 2017, 03:09:51 pm »
^^^ rear lights too please.  If I can see nothing but your hyper power super blinky then perhaps your light is new generation for use on  bright summer's day, not really appropriate for pitch black lanes on a winter's night.

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2017, 03:16:00 pm »
- Enforcement of existing traffic law, including removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras, allowing for example red light enforcement by CCTV for all road users

I agree with more enforcement of existing law, but I don't agree with removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras. The point of cameras is not to catch drivers out, more to remind them of their responsibilities, and removing warnings of cameras would only give the 'stealth tax' moaners ammunition.

The recent changes in fines for speeding are a good thing in my book, and the increasing prevalence of digital cameras means they will be 'always on', making enforcement easier. But the guidelines on enforcement should also be clarified so that police forces across the country are consistent in how they are applied - currently some will do you if you go only 1mph over limit, while others will allow 10% or whatever. I'd be in favour of making speed limits much stricter with no allowances - as much for environmental reasons as safety. Also much wider application (and enforcement) of 20 zones.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #29 on: September 21, 2017, 03:21:39 pm »
There can be no question (!!!) that cyclists can be no more trusted to police themselves than drivers can and, without the history and background of a cycling culture, widespread dickish behaviour is a result. OK, this might be a predominantly London thing, but that's where an awful lot of cycling happens, and a lot of awful cycling, to boot.
More to the point, it's where the media happens.
Pleasure spreads out on the map and the knapsack is full of joy.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2017, 03:28:47 pm »
- Enforcement of existing traffic law, including removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras, allowing for example red light enforcement by CCTV for all road users

I agree with more enforcement of existing law, but I don't agree with removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras. The point of cameras is not to catch drivers out, more to remind them of their responsibilities, and removing warnings of cameras would only give the 'stealth tax' moaners ammunition.

Sorry, I disagree. The key improvement to behaviour for cyclists and motorists is the threat of financial penalty for behaviour infringement. Nothing else will get them to change. I have no great hopes to achieve that, we've just heard the idea that speed bumps should be removed because of the pollution they cause slowing down and speeding up. Going at a steady speed doesn't seem to enter their tiny little heads.

Widespread use of average speed cameras is the only way to go. Plus, a picture of someone coming from the other way when the lights are green should be enough, you should not need dedicated red light cameras. OK, wouldn't catch the amber gamblers, but around here traffic lights are often treated as optional advice.

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #31 on: September 21, 2017, 03:29:23 pm »
More to the point, it's where the media happens.

That's not so true as it once was. A lot of the media happens in Manchester now. And other places.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2017, 03:40:07 pm »
- Enforcement of existing traffic law, including removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras, allowing for example red light enforcement by CCTV for all road users

I agree with more enforcement of existing law, but I don't agree with removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras. The point of cameras is not to catch drivers out, more to remind them of their responsibilities, and removing warnings of cameras would only give the 'stealth tax' moaners ammunition.
Australia doesn't tell drivers about camera locations.

Indeed, the police are permitted to use 'hidden' (ie, bumper-height, near invisible) mobile speed cameras *anywhere*, and they do. So people are damn careful about the speed limits.

It works.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #33 on: September 21, 2017, 04:05:37 pm »
- Enforcement of existing traffic law, including removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras, allowing for example red light enforcement by CCTV for all road users

I agree with more enforcement of existing law, but I don't agree with removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras. The point of cameras is not to catch drivers out, more to remind them of their responsibilities, and removing warnings of cameras would only give the 'stealth tax' moaners ammunition.

Sorry, I disagree. The key improvement to behaviour for cyclists and motorists is the threat of financial penalty for behaviour infringement. Nothing else will get them to change. I have no great hopes to achieve that, we've just heard the idea that speed bumps should be removed because of the pollution they cause slowing down and speeding up. Going at a steady speed doesn't seem to enter their tiny little heads.

Widespread use of average speed cameras is the only way to go. Plus, a picture of someone coming from the other way when the lights are green should be enough, you should not need dedicated red light cameras. OK, wouldn't catch the amber gamblers, but around here traffic lights are often treated as optional advice.
I agree with you about the financial penalty, though I think the likelihood of getting is perhaps more important as a deterrent than the size of the fine. But the bit I've bolded; unless we restrict driving licences to people who pass some sort of intelligence/common sense/attitude test (which might be a very good idea but almost impossible to implement), traffic systems are going to have to be such that "tiny little heads" can deal with them. That's perhaps an even bigger challenge than restricting driving licences to people with "good attitude"!

Anyway, I see we're using a thread on changes to cycling law to discuss motoring law. Plus ca change.
Pleasure spreads out on the map and the knapsack is full of joy.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2017, 04:09:54 pm »
Yeah I considered "Road User" as the alternative but I was hoping that this thread didn't go the way of the others on associated threads.

Oooo look! squirrel rabbit hole!

Ben T

  • Viable.
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #35 on: September 21, 2017, 04:20:36 pm »

Hmm.  Front and rear plates? 

Possibly, or maybe just one somewhere on the top tube/down tube.

What size -

Fairly small, smaller than car ones obviously - 4" by 1" maybe.


they would need to be readable by ANPR equipment, especially if linked to the insurance database,
Only ones that could be upgraded to use RFID, (or maybe ones that could theoretically use RFID, following a similar principle as TV detector vans).


and by normally sighted humans from 70 yards (or whatever is required in the driving test).
Would they be reflective, like car plates?  Different colours front and back?

No, that probably wouldn't be necessary to achieve the benefit I'm proposing, which is largely a political benefit remember.


 Could you transfer plates between bikes or have to have a separate set for each bike. 
Separate set for each bike, like you have to for each car.


Would each bike then need to have a registered keeper - that  way you could always claim it was someone else riding when the PC knocks on your door to ask about that red light you jumped.
Again, same for cars, and same rules for keeper liability would apply.


What about kids' bikes - at what age do they need plates?. Where would you mount them? 
Whenever they want to ride on the road.

I'm definitely right over this.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2017, 05:40:25 pm »

spesh

  • Treason's Greetings!
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2017, 05:56:04 pm »
History never repeats itself, but the Kaleidoscopic combinations of the pictured present often seem to be constructed out of the broken fragments of antique legends.
~ Mark Twain, 'The Gilded Age'

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2017, 05:57:45 pm »
R10000 x 1   RRtY x 4    SR x 6    HYPER x 1    LEJOG x 1    E = 111

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #39 on: September 21, 2017, 06:07:48 pm »
Without the aberrance that is central London, approximately no one cycles in the UK because, tbh, unless you're passionate about cycling it's a bit shit, somewhere between DIY dentistry and juggling your own poo. Sure, slap some ill-formed laws on cycling, and it'll be less than no one. One of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go. All you need a cheap bike and a basic level of fitness enough to turn the pedals.

And again, we don't enforce the currently motoring laws so it's all a bit pointless.
another space cat industries product
making the future more miaowy™

Pingu

  • Put away those fiery biscuits!
  • Mrs Pingu's domestique
    • the Igloo

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #41 on: September 21, 2017, 06:22:33 pm »
Without the aberrance that is central London, approximately no one cycles in the UK because, tbh, unless you're passionate about cycling it's a bit shit, somewhere between DIY dentistry and juggling your own poo. Sure, slap some ill-formed laws on cycling, and it'll be less than no one. On of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go. All you need a cheap bike and a basic level of fitness enough to turn the pedals.

And again, we don't enforce the currently motoring laws so it's all a bit pointless.

Plenty of York cyclists.  I think York cycling is very different to London cycling having done both.  (I have also cycled in Ipswich, Manchester and Southampton on a daily basis i.e. as a commuter.  In Southampton I was regarded as a freak of nature by my colleagues and far worse when actually on the road. )

 
Sic transit and all that..

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #42 on: September 21, 2017, 06:39:42 pm »
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-law-must-be-fixed-mustnt-it/

Quote
Lord Diplock noted the following:

“It is for the jury to decide whether the risk created by the manner in which the vehicle was being driven was both obvious and serious and, in deciding this, they may apply the standard of the ordinary prudent motorist as represented by themselves.

When it comes to the notion of “equal legislation” (or any synonymous term) there is one thing which makes it a transparent sham, at least in the context of existing statute.

And that is, of course, the ruling in the appeal of R v Lawrence, in which Lord Diplock’s remarks were pivotal.

To randomly find a jury of drivers is a facile task: the overlap between those who drive and those who are eligible for jury service is large. To randomly find a jury of pedal cyclists is not: only around 15% of adults cycle even monthly, meaning that even two regular cyclists on a jury of twelve would be a little above average.

How, then, could a jury “apply the standard of the ordinary prudent [cyclist] as represented by themselves”?

The answer is simple and indisputable: It could not..

.. the RTA 1988, cognisant as it is of Lord Diplock’s comments, enshrines in law not just inequality but a tyranny of the masses. Those who drive contribute to the decline in the standards to which driving defendants are held; those who do not cycle are open to influence in raising the standards to which cycling defendants are held.

Unfortunately there is a kind of anti-cycling tendency in the UK and Charlie Alliston played right into their hands.
Sic transit and all that..

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #43 on: September 21, 2017, 07:46:03 pm »
Without the aberrance that is central London, approximately no one cycles in the UK because, tbh, unless you're passionate about cycling it's a bit shit, somewhere between DIY dentistry and juggling your own poo. Sure, slap some ill-formed laws on cycling, and it'll be less than no one. On of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go. All you need a cheap bike and a basic level of fitness enough to turn the pedals.

And again, we don't enforce the currently motoring laws so it's all a bit pointless.

Plenty of York cyclists.  I think York cycling is very different to London cycling having done both.  (I have also cycled in Ipswich, Manchester and Southampton on a daily basis i.e. as a commuter.  In Southampton I was regarded as a freak of nature by my colleagues and far worse when actually on the road. )

The average number of journeys undertaken by bicycle for the entire UK hovers around 2%, the median around 1% (leastways, so says my Google-fu). Yes, there are pockets of high cycling density (Cambridge, for instance), but reality is that very few people cycle. On my edge of outer London, I'm shocked to ever see any cyclists who aren't me or aren't lycra'd up and passing through on there way up the Downs.
another space cat industries product
making the future more miaowy™

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #44 on: September 21, 2017, 07:54:39 pm »
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-law-must-be-fixed-mustnt-it/

Quote
Lord Diplock noted the following:

“It is for the jury to decide whether the risk created by the manner in which the vehicle was being driven was both obvious and serious and, in deciding this, they may apply the standard of the ordinary prudent motorist as represented by themselves.

When it comes to the notion of “equal legislation” (or any synonymous term) there is one thing which makes it a transparent sham, at least in the context of existing statute.

And that is, of course, the ruling in the appeal of R v Lawrence, in which Lord Diplock’s remarks were pivotal.

To randomly find a jury of drivers is a facile task: the overlap between those who drive and those who are eligible for jury service is large. To randomly find a jury of pedal cyclists is not: only around 15% of adults cycle even monthly, meaning that even two regular cyclists on a jury of twelve would be a little above average.

How, then, could a jury “apply the standard of the ordinary prudent [cyclist] as represented by themselves”?

The answer is simple and indisputable: It could not..

.. the RTA 1988, cognisant as it is of Lord Diplock’s comments, enshrines in law not just inequality but a tyranny of the masses. Those who drive contribute to the decline in the standards to which driving defendants are held; those who do not cycle are open to influence in raising the standards to which cycling defendants are held.

Unfortunately there is a kind of anti-cycling tendency in the UK and Charlie Alliston played right into their hands.
Isn't this a general weakness of the jury system? That it relies on average people to judge things other people have done by their own standard. A system using a panel of judges means a more dispassionate and expert view can be taken, but has other weaknesses.
Pleasure spreads out on the map and the knapsack is full of joy.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #45 on: September 21, 2017, 08:19:51 pm »
Someone told me today (so I've no idea if it's true) that in Switzerland, when you buy a bike you buy a licence in the form of a sticker. It is not just a tax, it gives you 3rd party insurance. It sounds quite sensible, given the cost of 3rd party insurance for a bike would be pretty small if applied universally.

It wouldn't work here, we are not like the Swiss. In the same way that turn left on red would never work here like it does in other countries - too many people have the wrong attitude.
Quote from: tiermat
that's not science, it's semantics.

Ben T

  • Viable.
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2017, 08:35:20 pm »
Without the aberrance that is central London, approximately no one cycles in the UK because, tbh, unless you're passionate about cycling it's a bit shit, somewhere between DIY dentistry and juggling your own poo. Sure, slap some ill-formed laws on cycling, and it'll be less than no one. One of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go.

What is being proposed that mean you won't be able to just get on and go?

You just won't be able to plough into somebody.
I'm definitely right over this.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #47 on: September 21, 2017, 08:44:25 pm »
Someone told me today (so I've no idea if it's true) that in Switzerland, when you buy a bike you buy a licence in the form of a sticker. It is not just a tax, it gives you 3rd party insurance. It sounds quite sensible, given the cost of 3rd party insurance for a bike would be pretty small if applied universally.

It wouldn't work here, we are not like the Swiss. In the same way that turn left on red would never work here like it does in other countries - too many people have the wrong attitude.
The Swiss abandoned that about 10 years ago, primarily because it was simply to expensive to run.  One of the Channel islands had such a scheme, as did some US states; all abandoned because they are too expensive to administer.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #48 on: September 21, 2017, 09:37:40 pm »
Without the aberrance that is central London, approximately no one cycles in the UK because, tbh, unless you're passionate about cycling it's a bit shit, somewhere between DIY dentistry and juggling your own poo. Sure, slap some ill-formed laws on cycling, and it'll be less than no one. One of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go.

What is being proposed that mean you won't be able to just get on and go?

You just won't be able to plough into somebody.

We have no idea what's being proposed yet as the consultation hasn't been published. We're told it will be in the interests of cyclist safety. I'm still convinced it will include the two H-words.
Quote from: tiermat
that's not science, it's semantics.

Redlight

  • Enjoying life in the slow lane
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #49 on: September 21, 2017, 10:27:14 pm »
We have no idea what's being proposed yet as the consultation hasn't been published. We're told it will be in the interests of cyclist safety. I'm still convinced it will include the two H-words.

As I understand it, it's a review rather than a consultation, which means it will make recommendations that the government may or may not act upon. Phase 1 is being advised by legal experts, so that suggests it's going to focus on whether/how a law proscribing "dangerous" cycling could be introduced, rather than whether such a law would be beneficial to road safety. Another words, 'what can we do to keep the Daily Mail off our backs?'.

The substance of the second phase is vague. I suspect that once phase 1 has achieved its objective, in recommending a law that we don't need to address a problem that is rarely encountered, phase 2 will be quietly dropped, as it would require some serious thinking.
Between the Disney abattoir and the chemical refinery