Cycling 2 abreast

[gpat]

I don’t think that the legislation is saying that it ‘involves’ injury or damage but that it could foreseeably lead to …..

The legislation, like much other legislation, is drafted in such a way that the judgement is based on the view likely to be taken by other competent cyclists.

In other words, i) would other competent cyclists take the view that his/her actions were reasonable, and ii) would other competent cyclists have foreseen the potential consequences of such action (in terms of the potentially dangerous outcome).

Ian

I agree with your analysis. I'll wager though that there are very very few examples of the legislation being enacted without there being an accident.

 

[mofurt]

Yes, cyclists are subject to the law. Some specific parts are applicable solely to motor vehicles, others specifically to bicycles, some to any vehicle. The big difference is the damage that can be caused by motor vehicles (look at how many pedestrians are killed on the pavements each year by motorists, for example); that's why they are more tightly regulated and licensed. Cycles aren't because they are less dangerous - whilst there are single figures of fatalities caused by them each year (many years 0), they are so rare that they make national news when they happen and cause mass outrage.

In cities like London cyclists do get pulled over and ticketed for running red lights, riding without lights or speeding in royal parks (where speed limits do apply to cyclists).

I'm sorry that doesn't fit into the world view of many who think cyclists are inherently dangerous and leave the house to deliberately obstruct other road users or cause accidents for the fun of it.

 

[gpat]

No you really need to learn the law. Anything using the road however propeled has to abide by the regulations.


**The definition of a road in England and Wales is ‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes’ (RTA 1988 sect 192(1)). In Scotland, there is a similar definition which is extended to include any way over which the public have a right of passage (R(S)A 1984 sect 151(1)).
It is important to note that references to ‘road’ therefore generally include footpaths, bridleways and cycle tracks, and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks). In most cases, the law will apply to them and there may be additional rules for particular paths or ways. Some serious driving offences, including drink-driving offences, also apply to all public places, for example public car parks.**

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/192/enacted

General interpretation of Act

(1)In this Act—



“cycle” means a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle


I have no problems with 99% of horse riders . I slow down & wait for an opportunity to pass them at slow speed. same as anything else. I have a problem with where I lived coming across race horses out on remote lanes with high banked sides & you come round a bend to find 20 horses worth millions of pounds completely blocking the road. But it is your fault they now have to get in single file to get past you? what's that all about?

They are

You're far braver than me. I wouldn't even use a motorbike as most ca't even see

Are you saying cycle is mechanically propelled vehicle?

mechanically propelled vehicle

"mechanically propelled vehicle" published on by null.

www.oxfordreference.com

I beg to differ. So that means that apart from the clauses specifically mentioning cycling then it would not apply would it?

You really think it is illegal for me to push my bike along the pavement and use a crossing? Really?

 

[bigtwin]

I agree with your analysis. I'll wager though that there are very very few examples of the legislation being enacted without there being an accident.

I suspect so.

Ian

 

[Tio64]

Seems simple.....make road users equal and introduce same licensing laws etc for cyclists.

You can’t be against every road user having the same rights surely.....or can you?

Every road user? That would be an enormous bureaucratic exercise at enormous expense in re-writing the law, and would be far from simple. I'm also guessing that you're unaware that as pedestrians we are road users and that the pavement is part of the road, as detailed in the Highway Code.
Of course if we do have exactly the same rules, then it's pedestrians, cyclists and horses on motorways.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Stoosal]

Every road user? That would be an enormous bureaucratic exercise at enormous expense in re-writing the law, and would be far from simple. I'm also guessing that you're unaware that as pedestrians we are road users and that the pavement is part of the road, as detailed in the Highway Code.
Of course if we do have exactly the same rules, then it's pedestrians, cyclists and horses on motorways.

Okay....let’s make it cyclists as a start then......happy now......trained cyclists that need to pass a test so they are aware of the rules and obligations of the road.....now that equal rights have been mentioned it all makes much more sense that way.....win win for all.... yeah! Speed limits for cyclists, protective clothing as for motorcyclists, identifiable markings on cycles, points for going thru red lights, ban for repeated offences........yep.....I can see the many benefits of such a scheme now. Should save quite a few cyclists lives and injuries.
If it’s a licensed system then the law would decide who could use what part of what road?

 

[Mrjenben]

Also the vast majority of tractor drivers around here wherever possible pull over to let the faster traffic past. They also drive as far to the left as possible.The drivers don’t seem to have the “I’m entitled” attitude either.

I think you’ll find that just like cyclists, there are a minority who ruin the reputation of the others. I was recently stuck behind a tractor for 15 miles along the lanes to Hawes. He ignored every passing place even though he ended up with 30+ cars behind him. By the end I think we all wished it was just a couple of cyclists in front of us instead. I suspect even you would have too

 

[mofurt]

First of all, what problem are you actually trying to solve? The perceived "cyclists are getting away with it and that's not fair" or a real world issue?

Have a look at the accident stats, the KSIs etc. See how many are caused by cyclists rather than motor vehicles. Then work out the cost to society of implementing your scheme, and the benefit to society if it were in place. Bear in mind this would likely push cyclists into cars, so take into account increased strain on the NHS (cyclists on average are healthier and use less NHS resources), increased congestion, increased competition for parking places in residential areas and towns/businesses, increased road accidents (as car drivers have more accidents than cyclists, and more serious). How about who is going to administer the tests? We don't have enough to do car and HGV tests as it is. Knock on at DVLA - they can't process licenses now, it will cost many millions to change their databases to add cycles to the license system. At what age do you expect people to get a license? My five year old grandson? Or are kids no longer allowed to use bicycles?

Bear in mind most cyclists have driving licenses, so are aware of the rules and can be punished for breaking them already.

Now, remind me, what is the benefit of your scheme to society that outweighs the costs to society of implementation? This has been looked at many times, both in the UK and abroad, nowhere has implemented it because it simply isn't worth it. If the government thought they could do it and make money from it, they would do so at the drop of a hat.

"Every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, plausible—and wrong"

 

[Stoosal]

First of all, what problem are you actually trying to solve? The perceived "cyclists are getting away with it and that's not fair" or a real world issue?

Have a look at the accident stats, the KSIs etc. See how many are caused by cyclists rather than motor vehicles. Then work out the cost to society of implementing your scheme, and the benefit to society if it were in place. Bear in mind this would likely push cyclists into cars, so take into account increased strain on the NHS (cyclists on average are healthier and use less NHS resources), increased congestion, increased competition for parking places in residential areas and towns/businesses, increased road accidents (as car drivers have more accidents than cyclists, and more serious). How about who is going to administer the tests? We don't have enough to do car and HGV tests as it is. Knock on at DVLA - they can't process licenses now, it will cost many millions to change their databases to add cycles to the license system. At what age do you expect people to get a license? My five year old grandson? Or are kids no longer allowed to use bicycles?

Bear in mind most cyclists have driving licenses, so are aware of the rules and can be punished for breaking them already.

Now, remind me, what is the benefit of your scheme to society that outweighs the costs to society of implementation? This has been looked at many times, both in the UK and abroad, nowhere has implemented it because it simply isn't worth it. If the government thought they could do it and make money from it, they would do so at the drop of a hat.

"Every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, plausible—and wrong"

Aw dear ....you don’t want to be licensed.......not much of an argument really....is it......as numbers of cyclists increase better to start now surely?

would it saves lives....probably....would it punish bad cyclists.....but you don’t like it.

 

[mofurt]

I'm licensed for many types of vehicles, and have advanced (and additional) passes for both cars and bikes. I'm fully insured on my bicycles.

You want licensing - prove it is worth it. You can't, because it isn't. But don't let that stop your rant.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Stoosal]

You prove it isnt? ........I’ve many classes of license and advanced level driving certificates........I have been involved in bicycle training and delivery for many years.....but don’t let that stand in the way of allowing me of having an opinion, as you have......you just don’t want a licensing system cos it costs you money!

 

[MattR]

You prove it isnt? ........I’ve many classes of license and advanced level driving certificates........I have been involved in bicycle training and delivery for many years.....but don’t let that stand in the way of allowing me of having an opinion, as you have......you just don’t want a licensing system cos it costs you money!

Can you name any country that has bicycle licencing now? Those that did have scrapped it as a disproportionately expensive process with significant disbenefits.

 

[mofurt]

You prove it isnt? ........I’ve many classes of license and advanced level driving certificates........I have been involved in bicycle training and delivery for many years.....but don’t let that stand in the way of allowing me of having an opinion, as you have......you just don’t want a licensing system cos it costs you money!

You want change - the onus is on you to prove it is worthwhile, not me to prove it isn't. Nowhere else in the world thinks it is.

The incremental cost to me is minimal with the number of vehicles I already have - so saying I don't want the cost is simply an incorrect accusation. But whatever, you are entitled to your views - the dept of transport has already looked at this several times and come the conclusion that licensing bicycles isn't worthwhile.

 

[Stoosal]

We could try it......?

 

[gpat]

Okay....let’s make it cyclists as a start then......happy now......trained cyclists that need to pass a test so they are aware of the rules and obligations of the road.....now that equal rights have been mentioned it all makes much more sense that way.....win win for all.... yeah! Speed limits for cyclists, protective clothing as for motorcyclists, identifiable markings on cycles, points for going thru red lights, ban for repeated offences........yep.....I can see the many benefits of such a scheme now. Should save quite a few cyclists lives and injuries.
If it’s a licensed system then the law would decide who could use what part of what road?

I wouldn't hold your breath.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[PhilMary]

Yup, and a number of them do. They can pull out one metre in front of a car travelling a sixty miles per hour on a national speed limit road and it will be the drivers fault. Crazy I know but cyclists like it. They can ride four abreast to hold up other traffic without anyone being allowed to overtake. Again crazy but cyclists like to do it. All road users should be accountable in law for their actions but cyclists can get away with just ignoring traffic law.

Again glenn2926 you are wrong, wrong and wrong again.

 

[Monty777]

I think it's more that the cyclists think they have a right to impede others and have absolutely no intention of try to lessen their impact on others. whereas the same cyclists seem to think every other road user should be the ones responsible for the cyclists safety. The cyclist themselves having no responsibility for their own safety.
I, when driving the motorhome I travel at or around the speed limit so as to try to not impede the flow of other traffic. If I am holding others up I pull over and let them pass. To me this is driving with thought for other road users. I most certainly wouldn't sound my horn when coming up behind cyclists expecting them to move out of the way. like cyclists do with their bell when cycling along the canal towpath and wanting to pass walkers.

I think to be totally fair there are arrogant cyclists who think they are the most important people, and arrogant motorists who think they own the road and that no one else should be allowed on it. I would like to think that the majority of us are somewhere in the middle and will make suitable allowances for other users.
This thread could go on for ever with entrenched positions so that’s it from me.

 

[MattR]

We could try it......?

At what point would you look around the world and think, wow, we really must try doing something that the rest of the world isn't doing or has stopped doing and see of we can do it better?

The information provided in the OP is supported by the police, Highway Code and many other organisations. I struggle to understand why car drivers in particular find it so difficult to give sufficient consideration to other road users, expect to rule the roads and ignore all of the situations when drivers break the laws of the land so they can rage against those on two wheels.

 

[Stoosal]

I’ve said it to you before.....why are you against implementing any type of system which allows cyclists to be trained to use roads safely....forget licensing then.....you choose the method........but why do we continue to allow cyclists onto roads where they can place themselves and others into danger as there is no way of actually knowing if they understand any of the rules and obligations on keeping themselves safe, far less having any actual ability to ride a cycle safely. Why do motorcyclists have to wear helmets but cyclists don’t? What about any type of system which punishes those who do not keep to the rules of the road placed on other road users and may prevent those who cycle dangerously to be stopped. On a busy road structure the emphasis is surely on all road users to ensure each other’s safety. One group cannot blame others if they also do not have basic skills to keep themselves and others safe nor prevent those who do repeatedly break the rules of the road from being prevented from doing so.

The system for car drivers is not brilliant, in fact, the test for obtaining a license is based on a pretty low skill level.....but at least it’s something. The number of cars and drivers will always mean that there are significant number of bad drivers and those who fail to follow laws. Percentage wise it is actually pretty low.

All I try to suggest is that a system of some type aimed at increasing the skill level and safety of cyclists should be introduced and, as the number of cyclists increases, better to do it now. It rather seems that it is cyclists that don’t want increased safety rather than me!

 

[mofurt]

Not supporting mandatory implementation of something with little benefit is not the same as being against safety.

You'd get far more benefit from retesting motor vehicle operators every five years (which would affect me too); the number who have demonstrably poor skills and boast about not having read the Highway Code for decades shows this. It'd also catch those whose health or general slowing down due to age makes them unsafe.

Or introducing mandatory helmets for car drivers. Have you seen how many serious head injuries there are in car accidents? Motorcyclists wear them, racing drivers wear them, why not wear one going to the shops? Fireproof suits too. If it just saves one life...

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[glenn2926]

Again glenn2926 you are wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Can you show me where any of the above points are wrong? According to the cyclists on here they are not subject to any road traffic laws and if they are involved in a crash it’s the other drivers fault, no matter what the cyclist did.

 

[mofurt]

According to the cyclists on here they are not subject to any road traffic laws and if they are involved in a crash it’s the other drivers fault, no matter what the cyclist did.

Really? I must have dreamt the following

if it can be proven that a cyclist caused an accident they will still be liable and able to be prosecuted, and the law hasn't changed at all. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card, regardless of how you misrepresent it.

Yes, cyclists are subject to the law. Some specific parts are applicable solely to motor vehicles, others specifically to bicycles, some to any vehicle.

In cities like London cyclists do get pulled over and ticketed for running red lights, riding without lights or speeding in royal parks (where speed limits do apply to cyclists).

 

[kevenh]

Again glenn2926 you are wrong, wrong and wrong again.

In their own words, the anti-cyclist here doesn’t want cyclists holding them up, or the cyclist to ring their bell to warn them of their presence and different speeds.
Same result as other threads on cycling,

 

[gus-lopez]

if it can be proven that a cyclist caused an accident they will still be liable and able to be prosecuted, and the law hasn't changed at all. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card, regardless of how you misrepresent it.

If they stop ? I f they can be indentified?

You really think it is illegal for me to push my bike along the pavement and use a crossing? Really?

No .It is illegal for you to ride on the road stop ,get off & use traffic lights or a crossing to cross the road.
If you are walking with the bike as a pedestrian then you have every right to cross the road as a pedestrian.

Are you saying cycle is mechanically propelled vehicle?

Yes.

Really? I must have dreamt the following

As above , if the cyslist does not stop you have no means of identifying them.

 

[RedFrame]

I’m pretty sure undertaking is illegal. Overtaking, going on the outside is legal which is why motorcyclists go on the outside. Cyclists do seem to think that road traffic laws don’t apply to them.
If there is a cycle lane then continuing along this lane is ok even if the car lane is stopped.

You're pretty wrong then

I'm a biker and "filter" in traffic regularly.

To save me typing this link may inform you of the specific points in the highway code that cover undertaking/filtering.

Lane Splitting in the UK: A Guide To Motorcycle Filtering

Everything you need to know about motorcycle filtering and the law in the UK. Including tips and tricks to lane split safely and common mistakes made by riders.

begin-motorcycling.co.uk

Cheers
Red

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[dunnah01]

Oh Please! cyclists should be aware of motor vehicles and make due allowance

 

[mofurt]

If they stop ? I f they can be indentified?

Not sure what you mean. That's the same for every offence, no matter what. Doesn't stop it being an offence, or them being liable.
The point I was making was that glen2926 claimed all the cyclists here say the law doesn't apply. It does apply, and as a cyclist I have said it does apply, as have other cyclists.

No .It is illegal for you to ride on the road stop ,get off & use traffic lights or a crossing to cross the road.
If you are walking with the bike as a pedestrian then you have every right to cross the road as a pedestrian.

In the UK it is absolutely legal for you to stop, get off and walk as a pedestrian. It doesn't suddenly become illegal to get off your bicycle because you are near a pedestrian crossing. As soon as you are off your bicycle you are a pedestrian. By all means show me in UK law where this is prohibited.

In UK law a mechanically propelled vehicle means an engine (e.g. petrol, steam, electric) not legs and cogs. It may be different in Spain.

mechanically propelled vehicle

"mechanically propelled vehicle" published on by null.

www.oxfordreference.com

 

[3 cabbages]

My favourite cycling picture

-it took me 45 minutes to pass them!

 

[glenn2926]

In their own words, the anti-cyclist here doesn’t want cyclists holding them up, or the cyclist to ring their bell to warn them of their presence and different speeds.
Same result as other threads on cycling,

You’ve pretty much got it. Cyclists think it’s ok to ring their bell or call out when coming up behind pedestrians ( they also seem to expect these pedestrians to allow the cyclist to pass) however they most certainly wouldn’t like other road users to sound their horn when coming up behind cyclists and hopefully being allowed to pass. Strange double standards there.

 

[mofurt]

That's the same cyclists who you claim throw themselves under vehicles at 60mph, and cause other accidents just because they can, and none of them believe the law applies to them, and every single one of them goes out on the road specifically to annoy other road users, and none of them believe they have any responsibility for their own safety?
I think it's fair to say you have a very, very strange view of the world and project thoughts and intentions onto others that simply do not exist except in your own head. Most cyclists are normal, perfectly reasonable people, who also drive cars, have families, do their best to get by without unduly impacting others. Are are most motorists, many of whom are also cyclists, have families, do their best to get by without unduly impacting others. There will be a bit of bad behaviour be some of both types, you seem to believe it's only on the cyclist side and it's every single cyclist out to get you personally as an attack on you.I think I'm done in this thread.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}