Turn on thread page Beta

Why is law so soft on Cycling offences and dangerous cycling? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Yes I know a bicycle can do less damage than a car or motorbike but at speed a cyclist can kill a pedestrian or ride in such a manner that other vehicles could swerve resulting in a pile up or RTA with multiple casualties and fatalities.

    Unlike motorists:
    Cyclists can ride under the influence of Alcohol or drugs and not face a breath test, prosecution and ban.
    Cyclists often get away with careless or dangerous cycling.
    Cyclists can ride in excess of 40 mph downhill, yet to ride a moped with maximum speed of 30 mph you need a licence.
    Cyclists can cross red lights but don’t face the penalties that motorists do.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    From a pragmatic standpoint, the health benefits from people cycling generally outweighs the cost involved in cycle-related accidents. Statistically a cyclist is far less prone to involvement in an accident than a motorist is, and said accidents are less likely to result in serious injury or fatalities. Meanwhile encouraging more people to get on two wheels means less emissions, lighter traffic, better parking, and people end up living for longer.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Cyclists shouldn't be on the roads.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion, we need:
    • Cycling infrastructure needs to improve. We need more cycle lanes, and ones that are wide enough. Some of the lanes in my area are so narrow that I feel like I'm about to be mowed down by a truck!
    • Helmets should be compulsory. Same with working brakes (both front and rear). I can't stand these stupid fixed-wheel people who think that what effectively amounts to rear-wheel engine braking is enough to stop their bike in the case of a crash.
    • If there's a cycle lane next to a road but separated (as in part of the pavement), cycling on that road should be illegal. There's an uphill stretch like that where I live, and I see way too many cyclists staying on the road as they climb, slowing the traffic to a halt, when there's a perfectly good cycle lane!
    • Stricter penalties for dangerous cycling. It's still ultimately a vehicle which can potentially be lethal.

    Cycling should be encouraged as it's healthy and reduces emissions, but at the same time we need to deal with the inevitable idiots.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    From a pragmatic standpoint, the health benefits from people cycling generally outweighs the cost involved in cycle-related accidents. Statistically a cyclist is far less prone to involvement in an accident than a motorist is, and said accidents are less likely to result in serious injury or fatalities. Meanwhile encouraging more people to get on two wheels means less emissions, lighter traffic, better parking, and people end up living for longer.
    I wonder what the statistic is for accidents they cause without actually being involved in or the amount of stress and annoyance they cause other road users causing them to be reckless and in doing so endanger people.

    This doesn't explain why I'd get a speeding ticket for going 40mph in a 30mph but they can do it on something with less braking capacity and that is harder to see. The question is as to why they are punished less severely and I don't think it makes sense why.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    I wonder what the statistic is for accidents they cause without actually being involved in or the amount of stress and annoyance they cause other road users causing them to be reckless and in doing so endanger people.
    Whatever the number it's not going to be large. There aren't enough cyclists to begin with, and most travel at slow enough speeds that serious injury is unlikely. Stress and annoyance is harder to measure, but TBH I'd say that's as much on the motorist as it is the cyclist, if you have an accident as a result of road rage you can't claim to be 100% blameless in that.

    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    This doesn't explain why I'd get a speeding ticket for going 40mph in a 30mph but they can do it on something with less braking capacity and that is harder to see. The question is as to why they are punished less severely and I don't think it makes sense why.
    Well you can partially blame that on lack of police funding I suppose, and an over reliance on speed cameras. Obviously a camera is not able to clock a cyclist for going too fast, so it's up to traffic officers to enforce stuff like this. And since, as I've stated, cyclists cause a minimal amount of traffic accidents, why would traffic cops spend their rather stretched budget on chasing them down, when they can improve road safety far more by ensuring car drivers behave sensibly instead?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    Whatever the number it's not going to be large. There aren't enough cyclists to begin with, and most travel at slow enough speeds that serious injury is unlikely. Stress and annoyance is harder to measure, but TBH I'd say that's as much on the motorist as it is the cyclist, if you have an accident as a result of road rage you can't claim to be 100% blameless in that.



    Well you can partially blame that on lack of police funding I suppose, and an over reliance on speed cameras. Obviously a camera is not able to clock a cyclist for going too fast, so it's up to traffic officers to enforce stuff like this. And since, as I've stated, cyclists cause a minimal amount of traffic accidents, why would traffic cops spend their rather stretched budget on chasing them down, when they can improve road safety far more by ensuring car drivers behave sensibly instead?
    I'm as much to blame as they are, but having to travel at 10mph behind some lycra lollipop is frustrating as hell and this does - right or wrong - lead to people doing stupid stuff to get round them (especially those who cycle right close to the middle line for no reason).

    Because the law is fundamentally meant to be fair and there is no reason cyclists should get a free pass because they cause a minimal amount of accidents. I cause NO accidents I still pay out the arse in insurance because some 17 year old muppet wrapped his golf around an old peoples home. Primarily because I rarely see cars go up the pavement to cut out a queue, run a red light, weave in between traffic, obstruct everyone by going massively slower than they are, shout at pedestrians to move out their way or travel entirely unlit in a black jacket down a 60mph country road at either 10 at night or 5 in the morning.

    I agree drivers should drive as sensibly as is possible but I don't think trying to get them to account for cyclists is the ideal solution to what is often the cyclists causing their own problems.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The key reason is enforcement would be tricky, there is no number plate to track the vehicle, a cyclist can nip through a pedestrian area to escape pursuit, the fact is that in theory they could be prosecuted but the logistics and costs makes it totally impractical except where the offence against someone else warrants the manpower.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    Yes I know a bicycle can do less damage than a car or motorbike but at speed a cyclist can kill a pedestrian or ride in such a manner that other vehicles could swerve resulting in a pile up or RTA with multiple casualties and fatalities.

    Unlike motorists:
    Cyclists can ride under the influence of Alcohol or drugs and not face a breath test, prosecution and ban.
    Cyclists often get away with careless or dangerous cycling.
    Cyclists can ride in excess of 40 mph downhill, yet to ride a moped with maximum speed of 30 mph you need a licence.
    Cyclists can cross red lights but don’t face the penalties that motorists do.
    It is against the law to cycle in a dangerous manner or under the influence of drink or drugs. However, it is a tricky thing to police and a lot of police turn a blind eye to cycling offences especially pavement cycling unless it's really stupid like riding the wrong way down a road. Cameras can't trace cyclists as there is no number plate either for red light offences. Basically, if you get on a push bike you can break the law with little to worry about. Just make sure you don't kill yourself or get knocked down by a car!
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.