Making up ridiculous stories doesn't help your case. And Strict Liability isn't about ridiculous behaviour. It is about redressing the power discrepancy between road users. A car driven badly kills. A cycle ridden badly does not.
I'm not making up anything up. Every single instance I quoted has and does happen - and unless you are going to argue that cyclists are particularly bad in London pretty much every day you can see instances of cyclists going through red lights, riding without lights, riding on the pavement and (less often) using mobile phones. All of which are offences.
You have access to google as much as I do, you can see that it's an incredibly rare to find cases of cyclists killing pedestrians, seems that a google search on it turns up as many cases of pedestrians killing each other with a punch.
[/quote]
But not zero. It does not matter how rare it is - a pedestrian killing a person with a punch and they will end up behind bars - what makes cyclists special? Yet in one of the instances of a cyclist killing a pedestrian all they could do is fine him £2,000 - the victim was 16 years old - she had her entire life ahead of her - taken away because some idiot on a cycle decided he would go ahead and who cares if someone gets hurt he was going to keep going.
You obviously have never walked through central London, the FM is not making up ridiculous stories, I see lunacy from cyclists every day. And a cycle ridden at high speed through a red light can cause serious damage to a pedestrian.
I've never seen a cyclist "ride at high speed through a red light". I've seen plenty termporarily become pedestrians (as allowed by the highway code) to go around lgiths and a few who ride through the red lights checking its clear. But making up stories of lunacy doesn't really serve your argument, just sounds like more "I hate cyclists ranting".
And as I said, a quick run through google finds as many pedestrians killed by punches even when the search field is "pedestrian killed by cyclist". It just doesn't happen in statistically meaningful numbers.
I'm not making up anything up. Every single instance I quoted has and does happen - and unless you are going to argue that cyclists are particularly bad in London pretty much every day you can see instances of cyclists going through red lights, riding without lights, riding on the pavement and (less often) using mobile phones. All of which are offences.
Things you aren't providing links for. I recall some Youtube video used to get posted about this till it was pointed out that over half the "idiot cyclists" were actually idiot drivers failing to pay attention or not offences in the first place.
In general terms your problem isn't with cyclists - the vast majority of whom follow the highway code - it is with the police in your area failing to enforce legislation.
But not zero. It does not matter how rare it is - a pedestrian killing a person with a punch and they will end up behind bars - what makes cyclists special? Yet in one of the instances of a cyclist killing a pedestrian all they could do is fine him £2,000 - the victim was 16 years old - she had her entire life ahead of her - taken away because some idiot on a cycle decided he would go ahead and who cares if someone gets hurt he was going to keep going.
You need to post some links then, just posting your opinion is meaningless without any back up information. If he was fined £2000 then either prosecutor failed or the case is more complicated than you state (which may explain why you don't quote it, if it even exists).
You aren't required to hold insurance to play golf but the likely incidence of causing a third party death may well be higher for golfers than cyclists.
The problem is left wing immigrant asylum seekers on benefits who only come over here to annoy right thinking motorists by riding their bikes at the side of the road. How very dare they! They are probably all paedophiles anyway. Did I miss anyone out?
The problem is left wing immigrant asylum seekers on benefits who only come over here to annoy right thinking motorists by riding their bikes at the side of the road. How very dare they! They are probably all paedophiles anyway. Did I miss anyone out?
I've never seen a cyclist "ride at high speed through a red light". I've seen plenty termporarily become pedestrians (as allowed by the highway code) to go around lgiths and a few who ride through the red lights checking its clear. But making up stories of lunacy doesn't really serve your argument, just sounds like more "I hate cyclists ranting".
And as I said, a quick run through google finds as many pedestrians killed by punches even when the search field is "pedestrian killed by cyclist". It just doesn't happen in statistically meaningful numbers.
I am talking about London of course, maybe in Glasgow all the cyclists are law abiding. I have seen cyclists ride through red lights at high speed many times, I don't need to make up stories, I witness it too often.
I don't think they should be banned, but I don't think cycling on today’s roads should be encouraged.
I've seen a number of cyclists ignore reds lights and ride over. Had cyclists come up on the inside when signalling left. Suddenly cut across in front, and some cycle right out in the road as if they're driving a truck, not riding a pushbike. The macho lycra set seem to cause the most problems.
Saw one last week race across a junction and very nearly pile into an elderly couple, he stopped just in time, but scared them witless.
Cycle lanes on narrow main roads that are two feet wide add to the danger rather than reducing it.
I think the Government are irresponsible in encouraging cyclists to take to the roads.
I don't think they should be banned, but I don't think cycling on today’s roads should be encouraged.
I've seen a number of cyclists ignore reds lights and ride over. Had cyclists come up on the inside when signalling left. Suddenly cut across in front, and some cycle right out in the road as if they're driving a truck, not riding a pushbike. The macho lycra set seem to cause the most problems.
Saw one last week race across a junction and very nearly pile into an elderly couple, he stopped just in time, but scared them witless.
Cycle lanes on narrow main roads that are two feet wide add to the danger rather than reducing it.
I think the Government are irresponsible in encouraging cyclists to take to the roads.
Do you think they should encourage them to cycle on the pavements?
What are you on about "Unable to keep up".
Cyclists don't need to keep up with cars. They cycle on the left so the cars can overtake them. They don't cycle in the middle of the road holding up traffic.
You've obviously never been along the C7 between Lewes and Newhaven. Queues of 10 or more cars crawling along behind a cyclist are not uncommon.
The road isn't wide enough to pass a cyclist without going on the wrong side of the road, and there are only 2 short stretches that are straight enough to do that safely.
Do you think they should encourage them to cycle on the pavements?
No - some wider pavements can be sectioned up, but at some point they will need to get back on the road.
The trouble with the wanna-be Barry Wiggins types is that they want to travel at one hell of a pace, and a lot don't want to slow up or stop, and so weave in and out of traffic and ride through junctions when the main traffic has stopped.
The Government have been encouraging cyclists, but in the main, don’t want to spend any money on creating safe cycling lanes.
I've seen women with young toddlers in two wheeled buggies being towed by a bike, which I think should be made illegal.
Setting aside the fact that the speed limit doesn't actually apply to bikes as it does to cars, it strikes me as unlikely that you see many cyclists who are capable of riding in excess of 30mph in built-up areas.
Now that a lot of town centres have a 20mph limit, many cyclists can exceed it.
Mind you, round my way buses and dust carts exceed it too.
I agree. They're bloody dangerous. And the toddler is at the level of a lot of car exhausts, so must be taking in a lot of CO and other crap.
They're great for off-road in places like the New Forest though, better suited for segregated cycle paths than roads as you suggest.
I haven't been following this thread much but I've recently been watching a few videos on a YouTube channel called silly cyclists. Run by someone who is trying to educate fellow cyclists in safety, it has plenty of examples of behaviour some people don't seem to believe actually happens.
I am talking about London of course, maybe in Glasgow all the cyclists are law abiding. I have seen cyclists ride through red lights at high speed many times, I don't need to make up stories, I witness it too often.
It doesn't matter where you're talking about, human beings acting counter to basic tenets of survival is nonsense. Yes some cyclists edge past red lights where it is clear and they do so by looking, its against the highway code and they should be booked. tell the police, not cyclists as that is where the problem lies.
But the idea cyclist are bombing through red lights so they die is bullshit. Almost all cyclist deaths are crush injuries from vehicles turning across them when the cyclist has the right of way. Period.
I think the Government are irresponsible in encouraging cyclists to take to the roads.
The only irresponsibility seems to be from drivers who believe the roads should be molded around them and not the need for humans to use a variety of transportation to get from A to B. Sounds like the same motorists who object to buses.
Oh the humanity of needing an extra 30 seconds to get to your destination while paying attention to your surroundings.
I agree. They're bloody dangerous. And the toddler is at the level of a lot of car exhausts, so must be taking in a lot of CO and other crap.
So you do agree that the solution is to ban cars from city centres to promote public safety and health. Good idea, you're right and the sooner government does this the better.
I think the Government are irresponsible in encouraging cyclists to take to the roads.
Poppycock.
More cyclists means less congestion. Less pollution. Less wear and tear to the roads. Less deaths and injuries. Fitter people who require less medical aid as they get older.
There will always be irresponsible people on the roads, which form of transport they choose to use doesn't change that one little bit.
You've obviously never been along the C7 between Lewes and Newhaven. Queues of 10 or more cars crawling along behind a cyclist are not uncommon.
The road isn't wide enough to pass a cyclist without going on the wrong side of the road, and there are only 2 short stretches that are straight enough to do that safely.
Who absolutely shocking that you might need to take slightly longer to reach your destination and not have your right to reach your destination as fast as possible without regard to anyone else be impinged by evil cyclists just making use of the roads cyclists pay more for than you do.
What about the tractors doing the same speed that are much harder to overtake? What about learning to use your vehicle and overtaking a bicycle safely and properly. There is no road in the country where this is impossible.
It doesn't matter where you're talking about, human beings acting counter to basic tenets of survival is nonsense. Yes some cyclists edge past red lights where it is clear and they do so by looking, its against the highway code and they should be booked. tell the police, not cyclists as that is where the problem lies.
But the idea cyclist are bombing through red lights so they die is bullshit. Almost all cyclist deaths are crush injuries from vehicles turning across them when the cyclist has the right of way. Period.
You obviously have no knowledge or experience of the way some cyclists ride in London. Your ignorance is making you look very foolish.
VED applies to vehicles based on their emissions. As such the VED rate for a bicycle would be £0.
The highway code places the highest level of responsibility on drivers of motor vehicles. That's why the driver is always responsible for a collision with a pedestrian, even if the pedestrian "jumps out". It's still the drivers fault and will cos their insurer.
UK cities tend towards very congested, twisted, narrow and cramped roads. As such they are unsuitable for cycleways which only add to this.
The average cyclist owns a car. They pay VED appropriate for the car while driving less mileage than a non-cyclist in the same VED banding. They are cheaper per mile driven so subsidise non cyclists. They also pay the same share of tax towards roads as everyone else - even non drivers and non-cyclists. People who only use their car, are the most heavily subsidised road users in the UK.
Extension of the Strict Liability law to cyclists (as happens in most other European countries) would immediately remove the ridiculous selfish entitlement attitude of drivers and allow cyclists to proceed without the concern of bad driving and the need to ride defensively this creates.
Drivers seem to have a mentality that it is their right to get to their destination as quickly as possible and at the expense of all other road users. They don't and this attitude is the source of most of the Road Rage which infects those typically fat, middle-aged men who are a menace and should not be allowed on the roads.
The best solution all round would be to ban most motorised transport from the centre of towns and cities.
Things you aren't providing links for. I recall some Youtube video used to get posted about this till it was pointed out that over half the "idiot cyclists" were actually idiot drivers failing to pay attention or not offences in the first place.
Not every instance of poor cycling is reported on the internet - there is a thing called the world out there. You don't see reporters on every junction recording every instance however if you insist that nothing happens unless there is a link
Nor is it a case of a minority of cyclists as this survey by taxi drivers shows http://road.cc/content/news/99885-london-taxi-drivers-claim-film-shows-most-cyclist-jump-red-lights-does-it - 53% of cyclists jumped the lights. Not far from that there is a junction of Kingsland Road and Whiston Road - saw one cyclists nearly knocked down by a taxi and it was entirely the cyclists fault as he went sailing past the lights expecting the taxi to stop.
And there were no reporters when another cyclists forced me to jump out of the way as he came barrelling around a corner and called me a f**c***g w*n**r. Fine if you are in your 40's but what if that was an 80 year old pensioner?
You need to post some links then, just posting your opinion is meaningless without any back up information. If he was fined £2000 then either prosecutor failed or the case is more complicated than you state (which may explain why you don't quote it, if it even exists).
I've never seen a cyclist "ride at high speed through a red light". I've seen plenty termporarily become pedestrians (as allowed by the highway code) to go around lgiths and a few who ride through the red lights checking its clear. But making up stories of lunacy doesn't really serve your argument, just sounds like more "I hate cyclists ranting".
And as I said, a quick run through google finds as many pedestrians killed by punches even when the search field is "pedestrian killed by cyclist". It just doesn't happen in statistically meaningful numbers.
Maybe not on the pavement among pedestrians, and most definitely not on the road, competing with lorries and cars. Cyclists who accidentally come in contact with motorised traffic would come off far worse than pedestrian/cycle accidents. It is a sad fact that cyclists are compelled to use the very worst part of the road, where the camber is at maximum and they must navigate drains, manholes and parked vehicles. Cyclists may not pay road tax or insurance, but they impose virtually no wear on the road surface and their presence means there are less cars to pollute the atmosphere than would otherwise be the case, plus they possibly result in fitter individuals who, in later life may be less of a burden on the NHS.
The solution is, imo, for the Government (of whatever colour) to treat the provision of cycle lanes more seriously, and provide purpose built lanes at road level, but separated from the motorised traffic by a raised, physical barrier, such as a kerbstone.
My problem with cyclists is the number of bad ones. A compulsory test might reduce that number but it won't cure it as anyone who's ever witnessed bad driving can confirm. Even bad car drivers have passed a test.
I also think bikes should have certain features built into their design as opposed to them being optional bolt on extras. I'm talking specifically mirrors and lights.
I also think high viz and helmets should be as compulsory as seatbelts and crash helmets are for car drivers and motorcyclists. Some kind of MOT might not go amiss either - possibly even a license and some kind of age restriction, for instance, if young kids are deemed ill equiped to be on the road with a car why allow them on a road on a pushbike?
Comments
I'm not making up anything up. Every single instance I quoted has and does happen - and unless you are going to argue that cyclists are particularly bad in London pretty much every day you can see instances of cyclists going through red lights, riding without lights, riding on the pavement and (less often) using mobile phones. All of which are offences.
[/quote]
But not zero. It does not matter how rare it is - a pedestrian killing a person with a punch and they will end up behind bars - what makes cyclists special? Yet in one of the instances of a cyclist killing a pedestrian all they could do is fine him £2,000 - the victim was 16 years old - she had her entire life ahead of her - taken away because some idiot on a cycle decided he would go ahead and who cares if someone gets hurt he was going to keep going.
I've never seen a cyclist "ride at high speed through a red light". I've seen plenty termporarily become pedestrians (as allowed by the highway code) to go around lgiths and a few who ride through the red lights checking its clear. But making up stories of lunacy doesn't really serve your argument, just sounds like more "I hate cyclists ranting".
And as I said, a quick run through google finds as many pedestrians killed by punches even when the search field is "pedestrian killed by cyclist". It just doesn't happen in statistically meaningful numbers.
Things you aren't providing links for. I recall some Youtube video used to get posted about this till it was pointed out that over half the "idiot cyclists" were actually idiot drivers failing to pay attention or not offences in the first place.
In general terms your problem isn't with cyclists - the vast majority of whom follow the highway code - it is with the police in your area failing to enforce legislation.
You need to post some links then, just posting your opinion is meaningless without any back up information. If he was fined £2000 then either prosecutor failed or the case is more complicated than you state (which may explain why you don't quote it, if it even exists).
You aren't required to hold insurance to play golf but the likely incidence of causing a third party death may well be higher for golfers than cyclists.
One legged, black lesbians.
I am talking about London of course, maybe in Glasgow all the cyclists are law abiding. I have seen cyclists ride through red lights at high speed many times, I don't need to make up stories, I witness it too often.
I've seen a number of cyclists ignore reds lights and ride over. Had cyclists come up on the inside when signalling left. Suddenly cut across in front, and some cycle right out in the road as if they're driving a truck, not riding a pushbike. The macho lycra set seem to cause the most problems.
Saw one last week race across a junction and very nearly pile into an elderly couple, he stopped just in time, but scared them witless.
Cycle lanes on narrow main roads that are two feet wide add to the danger rather than reducing it.
I think the Government are irresponsible in encouraging cyclists to take to the roads.
You've obviously never been along the C7 between Lewes and Newhaven. Queues of 10 or more cars crawling along behind a cyclist are not uncommon.
The road isn't wide enough to pass a cyclist without going on the wrong side of the road, and there are only 2 short stretches that are straight enough to do that safely.
No - some wider pavements can be sectioned up, but at some point they will need to get back on the road.
The trouble with the wanna-be Barry Wiggins types is that they want to travel at one hell of a pace, and a lot don't want to slow up or stop, and so weave in and out of traffic and ride through junctions when the main traffic has stopped.
The Government have been encouraging cyclists, but in the main, don’t want to spend any money on creating safe cycling lanes.
I've seen women with young toddlers in two wheeled buggies being towed by a bike, which I think should be made illegal.
Now that a lot of town centres have a 20mph limit, many cyclists can exceed it.
Mind you, round my way buses and dust carts exceed it too.
I agree. They're bloody dangerous. And the toddler is at the level of a lot of car exhausts, so must be taking in a lot of CO and other crap.
They're great for off-road in places like the New Forest though, better suited for segregated cycle paths than roads as you suggest.
I haven't been following this thread much but I've recently been watching a few videos on a YouTube channel called silly cyclists. Run by someone who is trying to educate fellow cyclists in safety, it has plenty of examples of behaviour some people don't seem to believe actually happens.
It doesn't matter where you're talking about, human beings acting counter to basic tenets of survival is nonsense. Yes some cyclists edge past red lights where it is clear and they do so by looking, its against the highway code and they should be booked. tell the police, not cyclists as that is where the problem lies.
But the idea cyclist are bombing through red lights so they die is bullshit. Almost all cyclist deaths are crush injuries from vehicles turning across them when the cyclist has the right of way. Period.
The only irresponsibility seems to be from drivers who believe the roads should be molded around them and not the need for humans to use a variety of transportation to get from A to B. Sounds like the same motorists who object to buses.
Oh the humanity of needing an extra 30 seconds to get to your destination while paying attention to your surroundings.
So you do agree that the solution is to ban cars from city centres to promote public safety and health. Good idea, you're right and the sooner government does this the better.
Poppycock.
More cyclists means less congestion. Less pollution. Less wear and tear to the roads. Less deaths and injuries. Fitter people who require less medical aid as they get older.
There will always be irresponsible people on the roads, which form of transport they choose to use doesn't change that one little bit.
Who absolutely shocking that you might need to take slightly longer to reach your destination and not have your right to reach your destination as fast as possible without regard to anyone else be impinged by evil cyclists just making use of the roads cyclists pay more for than you do.
What about the tractors doing the same speed that are much harder to overtake? What about learning to use your vehicle and overtaking a bicycle safely and properly. There is no road in the country where this is impossible.
You obviously have no knowledge or experience of the way some cyclists ride in London. Your ignorance is making you look very foolish.
Strict Liability is a good point.
There'd be more civilized road usage.
Not every instance of poor cycling is reported on the internet - there is a thing called the world out there. You don't see reporters on every junction recording every instance however if you insist that nothing happens unless there is a link
Hows about this Daily Mail link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541739/More-11-000-cyclists-caught-running-red-lights-riding-pavements-just-one-year.html
Nor is it a case of a minority of cyclists as this survey by taxi drivers shows http://road.cc/content/news/99885-london-taxi-drivers-claim-film-shows-most-cyclist-jump-red-lights-does-it - 53% of cyclists jumped the lights. Not far from that there is a junction of Kingsland Road and Whiston Road - saw one cyclists nearly knocked down by a taxi and it was entirely the cyclists fault as he went sailing past the lights expecting the taxi to stop.
And there were no reporters when another cyclists forced me to jump out of the way as he came barrelling around a corner and called me a f**c***g w*n**r. Fine if you are in your 40's but what if that was an 80 year old pensioner?
I will now accept your apology - here is a link to the very case I was referring to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Parents-anguish-killer-cyclist-walks-away-just-fine.html
you're not in London then
http://youtu.be/9e9eeCbWzQI
Maybe not on the pavement among pedestrians, and most definitely not on the road, competing with lorries and cars. Cyclists who accidentally come in contact with motorised traffic would come off far worse than pedestrian/cycle accidents. It is a sad fact that cyclists are compelled to use the very worst part of the road, where the camber is at maximum and they must navigate drains, manholes and parked vehicles. Cyclists may not pay road tax or insurance, but they impose virtually no wear on the road surface and their presence means there are less cars to pollute the atmosphere than would otherwise be the case, plus they possibly result in fitter individuals who, in later life may be less of a burden on the NHS.
The solution is, imo, for the Government (of whatever colour) to treat the provision of cycle lanes more seriously, and provide purpose built lanes at road level, but separated from the motorised traffic by a raised, physical barrier, such as a kerbstone.
I also think bikes should have certain features built into their design as opposed to them being optional bolt on extras. I'm talking specifically mirrors and lights.
I also think high viz and helmets should be as compulsory as seatbelts and crash helmets are for car drivers and motorcyclists. Some kind of MOT might not go amiss either - possibly even a license and some kind of age restriction, for instance, if young kids are deemed ill equiped to be on the road with a car why allow them on a road on a pushbike?