why is this even up for debate?

[I893469365902345609348566]

We're not all well behaved cyclists. I was surprised by no less than seven ebikes running a red light yesterday. Dizzying speeds can be reached on this particular hill.

 

[Nealh]

I wouldn't call them cyclists in the general term as they are riding high speed mopeds, they are simply yobo's on a motorised illegal pedal bikes.
Obviously have no concern for their safety or anyone elses.

 

[sjpt]

I wouldn't call them cyclists in the general term as they are riding high speed mopeds, they are simply yobo's on a motorised illegal pedal bikes.
Obviously have no concern for their safety or anyone elses.

Trouble is, many car campaigners won't appreciate that distinction.

 

[Nealh]

Pretty sure most with half a brain will see them for what they are and certainly not your every regular cyclist at those speeds or riding along in that manner, I doubt plod will do anything but the film clip needs uploading to the local forces road safe web site.

 

[sjpt]

Another important distinction there... 'many car campaigners' vs 'most with half a brain'

 

[Scorpio]

I have family in Denmark, drivers there they are very alert to any cyclists near junctions.

As it was explained to me, in a collision between a car and cyclist the car driver is assumed to be guilty regardless of the actions (or lack of) by the cyclist. Cyclists crossing junctions without looking was said to be the most common problem.

I'd guess any cyclists going through a red light would be found guilty but it's just a guess...

 

[AndyBike]

was surprised by no less than seven ebikes running a red light yesterday

I wonder if the last two were sulky they missed the red light and had to go through green.

 

[Bobbo1260]

Whilst the Highway Code clearly states you must not cycle on the pavement the police are to use discretion when challenging offenders. Paste this into google:

Support for police discretion when responding to people cycling on the pavement

The issue of cycling on the pavement, as in other areas of law enforcement, varies according to local circumstances

news.npcc.police.uk

.

i have cycled on the pavement past police and community police offices a number of times at a sensible speed, giving way to pedestrians and have only been challenged once by a community police officer and when I explained cycling past parked cars was too dangerous as i wobbly quite a bit, they let me on my way.
If you tear along without regard for others expect to rightly be fined.

 

[saneagle]

Whilst the Highway Code clearly states you must not cycle on the pavement the police are to use discretion when challenging offenders. Paste this into google:

Support for police discretion when responding to people cycling on the pavement

The issue of cycling on the pavement, as in other areas of law enforcement, varies according to local circumstances

news.npcc.police.uk

.

i have cycled on the pavement past police and community police offices a number of times at a sensible speed, giving way to pedestrians and have only been challenged once by a community police officer and when I explained cycling past parked cars was too dangerous as i wobbly quite a bit, they let me on my way.
If you tear along without regard for others expect to rightly be fined.

Personally, I think the situation is fine as it is. Do you want to change something? If so, what and why?

 

[Bobbo1260]

I think the police being able to use their discretion is spot on, providing they are aware of the directive. All those I have met seem to be.
Sensible courteous cyclists on footpaths don’t get fined and those endangering footpath users can, and should be.
I only posted the link for clarification on footpath cycling for those interested, wasn’t intending to start an argument .

 

[Ghost1951]

Notice the hoodlum 'two wheeler' uniform: black gear, hood, black balaclava. They think they are hoodlum special forces.

The problem is, as referred to elsewhere, there is no action taken about them, other than the occasional piece of police propaganda, where they film some sort of action man arrest. You can rely on Lenny to post these in his thread about seizures.

It's a joke. The real situation is that if you phone in to report outrageous e-cycle or motorbike hooliganism, nothing ever happens.

Then there is the occasional PR, trap set up and a bunch of miserable deliveroo guys, get their bikes taken, in some easy to police, town centre concourse, by cocky cops who laud their action to 'save the public' on social media, and Lenny assists by plastering it on here. What heroes we have enforcing the law.

Look at the phenomenal rates of shoplifting we now have since the police declared they were not doing anything about it.

I was speaking on the phone to a family member this morning who said she had gone to her local Coop to replenish food supplies and they had no wire baskets for her to put her shopping in as she gathered it. On asking where they were, the poor shop worker informed her that they had lost half of their baskets to the latest thieving scam, in which thieves, targeting high value produce, fill their wire basket, and suddenly rush out of the door to a waiting car. They report to the police who do nothing and don't even attend the incident. They often have security man there - big burly chap, I've seen him, but on intervening, he got roughed up and could not retaliate for fear of being accused of assault. He is off sick.

Of course if he had lamped someone, guess who would be in court..... Not the scum of the earth, but the guy trying to impose a bit of order.

All of this deterioration, i put at the door of the police. ALL OF IT. There is a long list of crimes they treat as unimportant and don't enforce. The rates of offending in those ways increase exponentially when there is no enforcement. Take the scourge of London phone theft for example. I watched a video this morning in which a MET policeman suggested that people should never use their phone in the street..... This stuff is regarded as unimportant, low level disorder, but it blights neighbourhoods and the lives of people who live there.

You might blame politicians who have cut funding, but while that looks like an attractive explanation, the problem was rife long before the recent round of cuts. It was present nearly twenty years ago when previous Labour governments imposed targets on police.

At that time, I reported a nasty offence when I was secretary of an allotment association when a discontented, nasty member was given the red card and expelled for abusing and menacing another member, returned at night and killed and maimed about a dozen chickens. We knew who had done it, and he had driven past the next day waving triumphantly at us as we disposed of the carcasses in sacks. We told the cop all about this, he shrugged and said he was personally very sorry, but he would not be allowed to investigate this crime because his bosses would not allow this kind of thing unless it was open and shut and we had him on video doing it. He was sympathetic - the service wasn't.

If you don't enforce laws and punish offenders - lawlessness takes over.

Soon this country will be like the Middle East. Just wait and see.


EDIT: Google Edinburgh bikers fight against motorbike theft.

For years motorcyclists have had no help when their motorcycles are stolen. I could tell you a tale about it but there is no point. You report your bike stolen and all you get is a crime number, even when the bike is being screached around the local streets and past the cop shop, with three hoodlums riding on it at a time. Then when it is recovered burned out a week later, having been seen multiple times on the roads - you get a bill for its recovery. The cops don't recover it, they engage a private firm to take it away and YOU PAY!!

 

[volt x]

But the video showed there was no victim.

The pass was safe and perfectly normal and routine in cities all over this country.

This arbitrary 1.5 metre allowance in all circumstances is wrong. Cyclists often don't even give us six inches, even when they are travelling at speed.
.

Then what you are saying is ,a cyclist , motorist going though a red light without causing an accident hasn't broken any laws because there was no victim. It's a simple case that a law has been broken here. Most laws are there to prevent accidents. Such as traffic lights and near passes.

 

[flecc]

Then what you are saying is ,a cyclist , motorist going though a red light without causing an accident hasn't broken any laws because there was no victim. It's a simple case that a law has been broken here. Most laws are there to prevent accidents. Such as traffic lights and near passes.

No, what I am saying is that this law is impractical and should never have been made. Where I live in London cyclists rarely get anything like 1.5 metres, even a full metre is rare, but that doesn't worry them, as the tiny gaps they routinely go through shows.

They commonly ride in bike lanes barely wider than their bike, with a busy traffic lane alongside hedged in by abundant street furniture like road islands or occupied right turn lanes, both making even a 1.5 foot gap difficult to achieve and 1.5 metres impossible. 86% 0f us live in towns and cities where such situations are commonplace.

How many of the cyclists shown below can get a 1.5 metre pass?

 

[volt x]

Notice the hoodlum 'two wheeler' uniform: black gear, hood, black balaclava. They think they are hoodlum special forces.

The problem is, as referred to elsewhere, there is no action taken about them, other than the occasional piece of police propaganda, where they film some sort of action man arrest. You can rely on Lenny to post these in his thread about seizures.

It's a joke. The real situation is that if you phone in to report outrageous e-cycle or motorbike hooliganism, nothing ever happens.

Then there is the occasional PR, trap set up and a bunch of miserable deliveroo guys, get their bikes taken, in some easy to police, town centre concourse, by cocky cops who laud their action to 'save the public' on social media, and Lenny assists by plastering it on here. What heroes we have enforcing the law.

Look at the phenomenal rates of shoplifting we now have since the police declared they were not doing anything about it.

I was speaking on the phone to a family member this morning who said she had gone to her local Coop to replenish food supplies and they had no wire baskets for her to put her shopping in as she gathered it. On asking where they were, the poor shop worker informed her that they had lost half of their baskets to the latest thieving scam, in which thieves, targeting high value produce, fill their wire basket, and suddenly rush out of the door to a waiting car. They report to the police who do nothing and don't even attend the incident. They often have security man there - big burly chap, I've seen him, but on intervening, he got roughed up and could not retaliate for fear of being accused of assault. He is off sick.

Of course if he had lamped someone, guess who would be in court..... Not the scum of the earth, but the guy trying to impose a bit of order.

All of this deterioration, i put at the door of the police. ALL OF IT. There is a long list of crimes they treat as unimportant and don't enforce. The rates of offending in those ways increase exponentially when there is no enforcement. Take the scourge of London phone theft for example. I watched a video this morning in which a MET policeman suggested that people should never use their phone in the street..... This stuff is regarded as unimportant, low level disorder, but it blights neighbourhoods and the lives of people who live there.

You might blame politicians who have cut funding, but while that looks like an attractive explanation, the problem was rife long before the recent round of cuts. It was present nearly twenty years ago when previous Labour governments imposed targets on police.

At that time, I reported a nasty offence when I was secretary of an allotment association when a discontented, nasty member was given the red card and expelled for abusing and menacing another member, returned at night and killed and maimed about a dozen chickens. We knew who had done it, and he had driven past the next day waving triumphantly at us as we disposed of the carcasses in sacks. We told the cop all about this, he shrugged and said he was personally very sorry, but he would not be allowed to investigate this crime because his bosses would not allow this kind of thing unless it was open and shut and we had him on video doing it. He was sympathetic - the service wasn't.

If you don't enforce laws and punish offenders - lawlessness takes over.

Soon this country will be like the Middle East. Just wait and see.


EDIT: Google Edinburgh bikers fight against motorbike theft.

For years motorcyclists have had no help when their motorcycles are stolen. I could tell you a tale about it but there is no point. You report your bike stolen and all you get is a crime number, even when the bike is being screached around the local streets and past the cop shop, with three hoodlums riding on it at a time. Then when it is recovered burned out a week later, having been seen multiple times on the roads - you get a bill for its recovery. The cops don't recover it, they engage a private firm to take it away and YOU PAY!!

You mention motor cyclists. How many times I see them in the box at traffic lights meant for cyclists is a joke. It's the ones that stop past the solid white line that really are pushing it. I'm not talking front wheel over it I'm talking whole bike.

Why is there little or no moaning about these bikers, I do get it for cyclists light jumpers. The bikers will have had to get a license pass a test. Yet the amount that go through red lights is astounding. Even if it's only past the solid white line, it's breaking the law. Damn now Judas Priest are in my head.

 

[volt x]

No, what I am saying is that this law is impractical and should never have been made. Where I live in London cyclists rarely get anything like 1.5 metres, even a full metre is rare, but that doesn't worry them, as the tiny gaps they routinely go through shows.

They commonly ride in bike lanes barely wider than their bike, with a busy traffic lane alongside hedged in by abundant street furniture like road islands or occupied right turn lanes, both making even a 1.5 foot gap difficult to achieve and 1.5 metres impossible. 86% 0f us live in towns and cities where such situations are commonplace.

How many of the cyclists shown below can get a 1.5 metre pass?

View attachment 63376

I live in London also and sometimes It's not practical , but then there are times when yes the close pass was completely unjustified. If I had cameras I would have reported the drivers. The law is a protection and cyclists do need protection. Yes more often from themselves but certainly from bad drivers.

 

[flecc]

You mention motor cyclists. How many times I see them in the box at traffic lights meant for cyclists is a joke. It's the ones that stop past the solid white line that really are pushing it. I'm not talking front wheel over it I'm talking whole bike.

That is both a very selfish attitude and showing ignorance of best safety practice.

Motor cyclists are far more vulnerable than cyclists, their 1% of the traffic resulting in 19% of the deaths, so as far as I am concerned they are welcome in the reserved boxes or anywhere else for safety, such ahead of the white line.

Why? Because for years the bulk of two wheeler deaths here were caused by forward control trucks through drivers being unable to see two wheelers alongside their high cab and left turning over them. It was quickly apparent that getting far enough ahead of the white line was the only way to ensure the drivers can see them, so it became common practice with cyclists and motorcyclists.

When it's a law against two wheeler safety, the law can go to hell.
.

 

[volt x]

That is both a very selfish attitude and showing ignorance of best safety practice.

Motor cyclists are far more vulnerable than cyclists, their 1% of the traffic resulting in 19% of the deaths, so as far as I am concerned they are welcome in the reserved boxes or anywhere else for safety, such ahead of the white line.

Why? Because for years the bulk of two wheeler deaths here were caused by forward control trucks through drivers being unable to see two wheelers alongside their high cab and left turning over them. It was quickly apparent that getting far enough ahead of the white line was the only way to ensure the drivers can see them, so it became common practice with cyclists and motorcyclists.

When it's a law against two wheeler safety, the law can go to hell.
.

My brother was knocked off his motorbike last month and lost his right leg. So I'm well aware of how dangerous it is on the roads. I know he would not cross the white line. A work mate of mine cycling home whilst stop at traffic lights had his front wheel over the line. The police in their car beside him told him he was breaking the law. He would agree with you and say the law can go to hell.

What you have to ask is what other laws can go to hell. Where do you draw the line. What about the one that says a driver must give way to oncoming traffic before turning right. You wouldn't say that one should go to hell. I know my brother wouldn't.

 

[flecc]

My brother was knocked off his motorbike last month and lost his right leg. So I'm well aware of how dangerous it is on the roads. I know he would not cross the white line. A work mate of mine cycling home whilst stop at traffic lights had his front wheel over the line. The police in their car beside him told him he was breaking the law. He would agree with you and say the law can go to hell.

What you have to ask is what other laws can go to hell. Where do you draw the line. What about the one that says a driver must give way to oncoming traffic before turning right. You wouldn't say that one should go to hell. I know my brother wouldn't.

We are entitled to protect ourselves, even against the law when that become necessary.

To adopt the stance you seem to be taking that it is always wrong is not only foolish, it has caused far too many deaths already.
.

 

[volt x]

We are entitled to protect ourselves, even against the law when that become necessary.

To adopt the stance you seem to be taking that it is always wrong is not only foolish, it has caused far too many deaths already.
.

Tell that to a court of law . My stance is simple the rules are there not to be broken but to be followed. Your stance is I'm above the law so stuff it. I get where you're coming from but a court would not. By your logic driving on a 40MPH road at 60 is the safest way for you to drive, because it protects you from the driver doing 50 behind you.

 

[flecc]

Tell that to a court of law . My stance is simple the rules are there not to be broken but to be followed. Your stance is I'm above the law so stuff it. I get where you're coming from but a court would not. By your logic driving on a 40MPH road at 60 is the safest way for you to drive, because it protects you from the driver doing 50 behind you.

Now you are making assumptions and just being silly and insulting. My stance is definitely NOT that I'm above the law, no-one is.

But when the law theatens life and actually takes lives, as the white line law has on so many occasions, one is entitled to defend oneself on those occasions.

After 73 years of driving, similar of cycling and some 54 years of motorcycling, there's not a road accident scar on me or anyone else, so I'll continue to trust my judgement and ignore your closed mind one.
.