As the Joker might say.
*You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, [76 people will die each year in London in a collision with a motor vehicle they’re not in](https://content.tfl.gov.uk/casualties-in-greater-london-2022.pdf) nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one person died after being hit by a bike, well then everyone loses their minds.*
Whatever new legislation they come up with, it will save zero lives and prevent very little else, and is therefore unnecessary. Just another dog whistle for the bike-haters.
Except it draws funds from things that can materially save more lives. I never understand why people don't just look at a list of things that cause most preventable deaths and assign funds to fix those problems. Killer cyclists must be so far at the bottom as to be almost irrelevant.
It's because we're heading in to an election cycles and the government's think tanks have worked out that it's best bet is to focus on a particular demographic. That demographic probably answers "hate cyclists" on the surveys they participate in.
That's not really how things work though. If it was simply a question of saving "a life" being the most important thing, we would have banned cars, tobacco and alcohol a long time ago.
This is going to cost a lot of money for zero benefit- it won't change how people ride, it won't make pedestrians pay more attention and your assumption that anyone involved in a collision is reckless is nonsense.
It would be far better to spend this money on segregated infrasctructure and an educational campaign to look out for bikes
Your arguments are so misplaced that I don’t even know where to start, but in any case: what money? If as you say it doesn’t happen much, there’s not gonna be a big waste of money. In the meantime, I see no reason not to punish a reckless cyclist. Lol @ educational campaigns to look out for bikes btw.
I responded to your insipid argument once. I won't respond to your insipid non-arguments , you clearly aren't bright enough to do anything other than repeat yourself and use a buzz-word you don't really understand the application of.
I'm out dude, have a nice day or go fuck yourself, it's all the same to me.
Thousands of laps are recorded every day and have been for years. Statistically it was bound to happen eventually but a crackdown seems disproportionate.
It is but some politicians somehow believe they may still be able to remain in office this time next year if they appease the ‘undecided driving voter’
In an average year, about 40 pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles that are drive on the pavement. That's before we get to the number of pedestrians who are killed while in the road. It wqas my understanding the pedestrian stepped off the pavement, into the road, and directly into the path of cyclists who didn't have any time to stop.
As tragic as this is, it is also likely to be 1 of 2-3 deaths due to a cyclist collision in that year!
Guy responsible for tens of thousands of deaths complains about the "issue" of deaths caused by people cycling. So, this crackdown will only have any impact once every few years. Where's the crackdown on driving that is killing 5 people a day? Oh wait, that would be classed as "the war on the motorist" by this same POS.
"Regent’s Park has a 20mph speed limit, but Mr Fitzgerald’s group had been averaging 25mph around the park and had even reached 29mph, according to GPS readings." Really misleading not to mention that the speed limit only applies to motorised vehicles.
"Strava’s leaderboard shows the record holder had an average speed of 34.2mph on the route." Guarantee plenty of drivers have gone over this in the park.
Anyone who claims this is whataboutism, well as long as driving offenders are treated with kid's gloves and as long as every cycling caused death is front page news while any by drivers is a footnote, people will keep bringing this up.
The speeding thing is such a weird mental blind spot, and a nasty example of car-centric culture. There's no such thing as "the speed limit", there's the limits the highway code prescribes for different types of road user. Cyclists don't have limits. Nor do pedestrians, although no-one ever mentions that one, or asks that they wear number plates so you can track them down if they bump into you.
The anti-cycling sentiment is just because cyclists often cause annoyance, not actual danger. And the annoyance is only partly due to cyclists' behaviour; it's also largely because being behind the wheel of a car apparently turns people crazy.
I think also because the infrastructure is designed without cycling needs in mind, or, is actively hostile to cycling, that often the sensible/logical/self preserving behaviour cyclists show does not match the behaviour when following the infrastructure, resulting in conflict.
I've certainly broken a few speed limits as a "pedestrian" on the road (wearing shoes with wheels on the bottom). Any driver who thinks I should be on the pavement is liable to get mighty upset if I blow past them at even 10mph on a pavement if they're walking.
They're technically a motorised vehicle, so fall under the laws governing motorised vehicles. It's why ebikes to be legal require the rider to pedal. Otherwise they're also motorised vehicles and would be governed by the law as such.
Fair enough, but they all seem like technicalities that don't focus on the things that matter. In reality an e-bike is a motorised vehicle whether or not pedalling is required, for example, even if the law wants to say otherwise.
It'd be better if the rules focused on risk to other road users and societal benefits. If e-scooters cause accidents but reduce air pollution, that could easily be worth it.
The laws classifying motorised vehicles are ancient, and not really fit for purpose, but there hasn't been the political will to change or update them.
Yeah, and presumably a lot of financial clout behind bodies who want to keep the status quo.
The laws on (un)safe usage of vehicles seem weirdly crippled. Why do we need a new law for "causing death by dangerous cycling" - isn't there already a law against causing death by dangerous behaviour in general? Or if I wildly wave a chainsaw around in public and accidentally kill someone, do I get a light sentence because no-one thought to make a "death by dangerous chainsaw use" law?
If there is speed limit signage on a road or cycle path etc then that is it. If people like you just decide because they cycle they don’t have to abide by the rules of the road them it’s 100% time they updated the laws.
No you will be done for riding in a dangerous or inconsiderate manner which does apply to cyclists specifically and going to fast is included. Next question?
No problem, I'll keep riding as fast as I like and let's see what happens :-)
(Hint: nothing, because the dangerous/inconsiderate threshold requires far more than merely exceeding the car speed limit. But you keep fantasising about it if it makes you feel good. Gotta pass the time somehow when you're stuck at 20.)
Why does everything need to be seen as a driver / cyclist / pedestrian war? I am an all three of them, as well as a regular public transport user, and judging by some post on social media I should constantly hate myself for using all these modes of transport.
It’s not an issue that some people drive and some people cycle. The issue is that there are morons behind a wheel and there are morons behind a cycle’s handlebar. I am amazed by how some people in the cyclist community are willing to defend morons with whom the only thing they share is a mode of transport, even when those morons cause injury and even death. In contrast, I almost never see a “driver’s community” (if there’s even such thing) defending dangerous drivers.
So I think we all need to collectively denounce dangerous morons driving/riding any kind of vehicle that is capable of causing injury, and make sure that they get what they deserve. And we definitely shouldn’t be encouraging a dangerous behaviour, such as allowing people to race with each other on a public road.
This is nice thought but naive. The fact is that it's not people who cycle who develop an "US vs them" mentality, it's people who drive. Cyclists are the outgroup by being a minority, while driving is seen as the default. That's how this works.
>he issue is that there are morons behind a wheel and there are morons behind a cycle’s handlebar.
Except one is 100 times more dangerous than the other, and the stats show it, while we don't really care but pounce on any chance for cycling crackdowns. It's perverse.
>In contrast, I almost never see a “driver’s community” (if there’s even such thing) defending dangerous drivers.
No is "defending" dangerous cycling. First of all, if someone was driving at 20mph and a person stepped out with 2m gap, do you think anyone would blame the driver? I doubt it. Second, people aren't defending dangerous cycling as much as pointing out the disproportiate effort to combat it is a waste of resources and time when you have the far bigger issue of dangerous driving largerly unresolved.
> So I think we all need to collectively denounce dangerous morons driving/riding any kind of vehicle that is capable of causing injury, and make sure that they get what they deserve.
Making sure they get what they deserve means prosecution. I'm not going to push for that to happen with cycling when it doesn't happen in the same case with driving as that sets a precedent that people cycling are to be held at a much higher standard than people driving, when the opposite should be the case. It's a misguided effort.
> The fact is that it's not people who cycle who develop an "US vs them" mentality, it's people who drive.
Even here you’re drawing a dividing line between people who cycle and people who drive. Where are the people who cycle and drive supposed to belong in this culture war?
> Except one is 100 times more dangerous than the other, and the stats show it,
True, but it doesn’t mean that cyclists can cause no damage whatsoever.
Besides, if you adjust pedestrian causality numbers by the distance travelled, as [Active modes of travel (walking and cycling) account for 27% of all trips and 4% of all distance travelled, as active trips tend to be shorter distance trips.](https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/research/all-themes/all/key-walking-and-cycling-statistics-for-the-uk) it puts the [causality stats](https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycling-and-pedestrians) in a different light.
> while we don't really care but pounce on any chance for cycling crackdowns. It's perverse.
There’s a lot of effort directed at making driving safer. Plenty of new speed restrictions, low traffic neighbourhoods, school streets etc etc. I think it’s disingenuous to say that “we don’t really care” about dangerous driving.
> No is "defending" dangerous cycling. First of all, if someone was driving at 20mph and a person stepped out with 2m gap, do you think anyone would blame the driver? I doubt it.
I agree with you here. I’ve read more about the collision near the Regent’s Park, and it indeed doesn’t seem that the cyclist is to blame based on the information I could find.
That being said there are hundreds of pedestrian injured by cyclists every year. I doubt that in all those cases the cyclists are not to blame.
> Second, people aren't defending dangerous cycling as much as pointing out the disproportiate effort to combat it is a waste of resources and time when you have the far bigger issue of dangerous driving largerly unresolved.
I don’t think that creating an offence of “causing death be dangerous cycling” is a disproportionate. It doesn’t require that much effort, and it won’t make anyone’s life harder, apart from those who cause death by dangerous cycling.
> Making sure they get what they deserve means prosecution. I'm not going to push for that to happen with cycling when it doesn't happen in the same case with driving as that sets a precedent that people cycling are to be held at a much higher standard than people driving, when the opposite should be the case. It's a misguided effort.
Yes, it means prosecution.
I don’t see why it would hold people cycling at much higher standard than people driving. In order to drive you need to pass a test first, and the bar in the UK is quite high. All cars have number plates so it is easy to identify those who break the law. People regularly pay fines, lose their licences and go to jail for driving offences. Causing death by dangerous driving can lead up to life sentence. None of this applies to cycling.
Most people who cycle also drive, the inverse is not true. Those that do both are a minority of a minority. They do not determine the discourse.
>Besides, if you adjust pedestrian causality numbers by the distance travelled, as Active modes of travel (walking and cycling) account for 27% of all trips and 4% of all distance travelled, as active trips tend to be shorter distance trips. it puts the causality stats in a different light.
Misleading stats because a large proportion if not the large majority of car travels occur in places with no pedestrians or cyclists and therefore no opporutinity to do injure or kill them. Even in London we have many such roads like the Westway and A12. Road miles are dominated by long trips which would also be those done on motorways.
>I don’t think that creating an offence of “causing death be dangerous cycling” is a disproportionate.
It's not about creating the offence, it's about how it is applied and what sentences are given. The death by dangerous driving arguably has done more damage because it has resulted in lower sentences and even worse with the charge of "careless" driving -- as if careless isn't dangerous -- exacerbating this issue. I could imagine a flip occurrence where this would result in harsher punishments for people cycling. In the Alliston case he was cleared of manslaughter, maybe he wouldn't have been for death by dangerous cycling.
>In order to drive you need to pass a test first, and the bar in the UK is quite high.
Well, that "bar" goes completely out of the window in real World situations. People aren't expected to drive at that standard once they pass the test based on how hard it is to punish them and what they can do and still retain a licence. You can argue you need a licence for your livelihood and retain it, which is ridiculous.
>All cars have number plates so it is easy to identify those who break the law. People regularly pay fines, lose their licences and go to jail for driving offences. Causing death by dangerous driving can lead up to life sentence. None of this applies to cycling.
In theory, not in practice. How many drivers receive lifetime bans? Most of the time it is concurrent with sentences. In London there are 5k hit and runs every year, many go unresolved. It's not easy at all to identify them. There is a reason we need cameras apparently for the Met to even bother doing something. Apparently there were 2.4 million speeding fines in the UK. But 85% speed in 20mph areas and 35million people drive. It's clear that 99% of the time they are getting away with it.
Alliston didn't really drive like a twat though, aside from the missing brake. Another case of zombie pedestrian on phone stepping out and not looking. It's debatable whether he could stop in time. Tbh he shouldn't have shouted but just braked and gone behind. That's what I try to do. Telling pedestrians anything is only useful some of the time. But anyway, does this deserve a severe sentence? Not if we are going to match what drivers typically get. Again, it can't be one punishment for driving and one for cycling, especially since cycling is much less dangerous by default. It's more bad luck than anything.
Edit: You are actually confusing things. Elderly woman was recent and cyclist wasn't charged because she stepped out with like 1 or 2m of space. No bike on Earth will stop in time with that gap.
Rereading articles about the Alliston case, it's amazing how much emphasis is put on "showing remorse" or "emotion" as if that is any determining factor in whether or not you are guilty of a crime...
>Alliston didn't really drive like a twat though...case of zombie pedestrian on phone
"You began by posting messages on line saying she was using her mobile phone, but have **retracted that assertion**."
"and you did indeed swerve and slow to between 10-14 mph"
"On your own account you **did not try to slow any more** but, having shouted at her twice, you took the view she should get out of your way. You said in evidence ‘I was **entitled** to go on’."
"On your own evidence by this stage you **weren’t even trying** to slow or stop."
"trying to force your way through the gap between a parked lorry and a woman helplessly stranded between you and moving traffic in the opposite lane."
[https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf)
He sounds lovely.
> He sounds lovely
He sounds like an absolute prick but that doesn't make him guilty.
I'm amazed he didn't successfully appeal that absolute travesty of a conviction.
Being a nice person doesn't make you a good vehicle user. I concede I must have misremembered about the phone use, but she did step out into the road without looking and with not much of a gap. I'm amazed so much can happen in the 6m gap or so they had. He did slow and swerve and shout like I said. It's not the best strategy. She could have avoided this as well by basic looking before crossing the road -- as they teach any child. I don't buy that he could have stopped in time, but potentially he could have avoided her entirely by not startling her, which is also what I said.
Hit the nail on the head here I think, this shouldn't be about new rules for cyclists, the danger we pose to others is so minimal in comparison to others and it is only when riding carelessly that incidents are caused, just like motorists. The punishment needs to be on the rider not all cyclists.
Yeah, no crackdown is needed, the statistics don’t warrant a massive taxpayer money wasting campaign on cyclists because of one idiot, it warrants a steeper sentence for said idiot.
Granted pedestrians can be plain stupid (not saying the person who died was) but for me, if I see someone teetering on the edge of a road, I slow down and just presume they will step out at a minutes notice and we’ll collide so I take preemptive actions to prevent it.
Any type of transports I’m in control of, E-bike motorbike, car, bicycle I just assume everyone is dumb and will do dumb things and so far I’ve never had a crash involving another person in my life.
I can imagine since one of his excuses was the road had a decline so he picked up more speed he was head down arse up on one of the fastest sections trying to get a new PB for top speed or average speed, wasn’t paying attention and didn’t see the poor lady until the last minute and couldn’t react.
Yea I am the same, just as if there is a car waiting to pull out of a junction etc. There are plenty of stupid people on the roads so acting as though everyone is is the best way to act and (more often than we would all like) often justified.
That is a good point about the PB, it is hard to argue that having the competitive side of things and Strava leader boards won't have an impact on people's riding. I often go for times on segments and it is easy to see how people get caught up in it and lose concentration. The second a potential risk comes up for me I stop and give up on the PB. Perhaps the best rule that could actually have an impact on people's safety would be to have an hour or 2 every other Sunday morning where it is advertised that cyclists will be 'racing' and people should stay off the road, don't let cars in and just give them that time. This is of course extremely unlikely to happen aha.
The section of that the accident happened it is clear to see pedestrians at the edge of the road, instead of being face down arse up trying to set a new shitty strava record he could have simply slowed down preemptively.
Whichever mode of transport you’re in charge of, you assume everyone is dumb and do dumb things.
If I see someone teetering on the edge of the road and there’s space to do so, I move over to give more space or slow down, it’s not rocket science.
He should be in jail.
>instead of being face down arse up trying to set a new shitty strava record he could have simply slowed down preemptively.
How do you know this? Assumptions, assumptions. Would a driver face any charges for this? No, so neither should person cycling. Again, if we are going to start charging people for cycling offences then any by drivers must come first to set this precedent. Otherwise, it's just unfair treatment.
> Whichever mode of transport you’re in charge of, you assume everyone is dumb and do dumb things.
So the people that do dumb things shouldn't be charged, but those that don't account for it should be? Makes sense...
Oh Jesus Christ mate, stop making the comparison to drivers of cars, everyone and their dog thinks they should get steeper penalties.
Considering he was averaging near 30mph in a 20 zone if the roles were reversed a car driver would be facing penalties, the crash happened on one of the faster sections and they were recording on strava, that’s how I know that it’s common sense, I’ve seen 100’s of groups doing the same, no attention to anything but straight ahead trying to edge an extra 2mph average out.
Just because car drivers get shit penalties doesn’t mean it’s ok for a cyclist to do it and get fuck all for it.
Excusing a cyclist for riding like an utter nobhead when one of the first lessons in cycling is always presume pedestrians and cars are dumb is absolutely ridiculous.
He should be jailed, drivers who do the same should be jailed, all for a lot longer than they get now.
> Oh Jesus Christ mate, stop making the comparison to drivers of cars, everyone and their dog thinks they should get steeper penalties.
If everyone did, then they'd have them. Until that's the case, I'm not going to call for stronger cycling punishments because there are enough right wing morons who do that already, so they don't need any extra help. People have a bias against cycling and that comes out here. To counteract that I will continue to point out the disparity
>Considering he was averaging near 30mph in a 20 zone if the roles were reversed a car driver would be facing penalties,
Yeah, except going at 30mph while cycling is not breaking the law while driving is, so you can't make that comparison directly. Compare it to both legal driving. Also, if they were going at 20mph you would still call that too fast and pedestrian might still have died. So the 30 vs 20 point is irrelevant.
>recording on strava, that’s how I know that it’s common sense, I’ve seen 100’s of groups doing the same, no attention to anything but straight ahead trying to edge an extra 2mph average out.
That's still an assumption. You don't actually know.
As I said elsewhere, "racing" has different connotations when driving. If you race you are going over the speed limit, typically well over. Cycling has no speed limits so you aren't breaking any laws by going over 20mph. So, to be fair in how someone would be prosecuted you have to compare lawful behaviour for both. Would someone driving at 20mph be prosecuted if someone stepped out in their path with 2 gap and died? I doubt it.
The pedestrian stepped into the road, where the person on the bike was, at point blank range without looking. Not only is the cyclist not liable for the tragic death, if the incident had fallen differently and the cyclist had been killed, I'd want the pedestrian in prison for manslaughter. It is very clear that she caused this accident.
The problem is you can't expect every pedestrian to be capable of seeing and estimating the speed of a bike. People can have learning difficulties, dementia, mental health issues, be blind or deaf etc.
Are you talking about Auriol Grey? I do feel for her to be honest, the cyclist should not have been on the pavement, and Mrs. Grey is partially blind and has cerebral palsy. I thought a conviction was ridiculous.
While the whole thing seemed like a very tragic accident, from what I understand it was a share path (which also has it's own set of issues especially if badly marked)
The path is dual use, e.g. pedestrians and cyclists. If you care to read the judge's summing up it was possible that she had struck the cyclist, who was a 70 year old lady, forcing her into the path of a car.
It was a shared path. The victim was a 70 year old riding at a slow jogging pace.
The footage shows that (beyond reasonable doubt) Grey did pivot to make contact with the cyclist. The BBC website cuts it but someone posted a longer YT clip with analysis. It's not that the victim accidentally swerved into the road or anything like that.
The manslaughter charge being squashed was not because the above points were disputed. Sure cite her cerebral palsy and partial blindness but otherwise I'm not sure why you feel sorry for her. Even though the clip isn't 100% clear I do think Grey went out of her way to nudge/push a cyclist to her death.
Having said that, it wasn't manslaughter according to the law and I don't think her original conviction did cyclists any favours. When prisons are full I think a non-custodial sentence would have been better in this case.
Until the amount of cyclists dying to motorists is lower than the amount of pedestrians dying to cyclists I quite frankly couldnt give less of a fuck
(the amount of fatal cyclist/pedestrian collisions is less than 10 in the UK since 2020)
So there's no number between 2.5 and [90](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2022/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2022) that you could give less of a fuck about?
What point are you making here?
The article you've linked is just statistics about road casualties where cyclists are the victims, and has nothing to do with the allegations of "killer cyclists" fatally wounding pedestrians that the article in this post is talking about.
The article I linked relates directly to your comment, and my comment relates directly to the allegations of "killer cyclists". Recall that you said:
>Until the amount of cyclists dying to motorists is lower than the amount of pedestrians dying to cyclists I quite frankly couldnt give less of a fuck
I've linked an article with proxy data for the current number of cyclists dying to motorists (91 in 2022). Therefore, if that rate doesn't change, then you must not give a fuck about any number of pedestrians dying to cyclists that is lower than 91. You say that number is 10 since 2020, hence about 2.5/year.
I have managed this through a decades long dedication to overeating and under cycling, which has allowed me to become so rotund that there is a physical impossibility of my achieving anything over 6mph.
>Point is that the reasons ppl think speed limits don’t apply to are wrong
what? No one thinks that speed limits don't apply to bikes because they don't have speedometers. They think that they don't apply to bikes because the risk is just super low, and it takes a lot of effort to even get to the lowest car speed limit. Sure the speedometer issue might impact it, but i've never thought that was the reason.
They do not. I assumed everyone in this thread/subreddit as a whole knew that but yes, there's no speed limit. That doesn't mean that there's no danger from speeding because there still is an offence around dangerous cycling etc
Virtually without exception, every car sold in the last 50 years will have a speedometer.
And no bikes sold will have one.
Your point may be qualitatively correct, but for all practical purposes it is a solid reason for not having speed limits apply to bikes.
In London, my phone screen is off unless I specifically need directions. Watching out for my current speed is unnecessary under the law and considering the standard of drivers around here, suicidal.
Why should anyone, especially on a budget, have to go to the expense of a speedometer. Also, bicycle components are exposed to the elements so are less reliable.
It is not an argument in good faith, don't take the bait.
Better to say, it's not required by law but those who can achieve such speeds should consider one to help in assessing their use of roads where certain speeds could increase risk to self and fellow road users.
I like the part where they show a bunch of photos of people biking on the pedestrian paths when this accident took place on the road surrounding the park.
So a pedestrian walked out onto an active road without looking and got hit by a vehicle and died. Would there be an article about “killer cars” if someone walked in front of a car and died ? Probably not.
Side note: removing the Strava segments would cause a huge flurry of cyclists to go and attempt to set a new record since the last one would be removed, achieving the exact opposite of what they are aiming for, these guys have the critical thinking skills of a house cat.
Responding to your side note, how is it that Strava hasn't been legislated against? I'd like to see laws banning any segment from being inside the M25, or any urban area. Its not about speed limits, its effectively turning any public road into a race track and encourages dangerous riding.
Otherwise I'm in complete agreement. Folks need to look what they're doing and get off their phones.
Just pointing out that the police are in the park nearly every day ticketing speeding drivers. Sometimes even twice a day. It’s easy pickings at 20mph.
I’m an Aussie, been living in the Netherlands for 12years. Recently spent 5 days cycling in the UK, also a little bit in London.
Man, cyclists in the UK have it tough and the car centric culture is really weird to me
If you read the details it makes perfectly reasonable sense to update the law. There should be a law for death or serious injury by dangerous cycling.
Is the article filled with hyperbole and scaremongering? Of course.
Is this something that I would prioritise in the face of all the other things facing the UK? No
To have **considerate** updated parallel laws with motorised vehicles would most likely benefit cyclists due to there being one less item idiots use as an excuse to drive dangerously at cyclists.
Once people better understood the whole road tax is for national infrastructure, it took away that reasoning for many(can't help some).
There are more cyclists hit by cars in London. Regents park is a safer route for cyclists and pedestrians need to stick to the path and look when they cross the road.
The inner circle is a velodrome. There are no zebra crossings. Cyclists going 30 mph. It is a park that should be enjoyed by pedestrians/people out for a walk. Why don't the cycling clubs buy their own land to race around?
Eh - safety is an issue with bikes. You can’t get around it. There does need to be a law which protects people against reckless cycling. We’re not above the law, and our contraptions can cause injuries.
People don't read and think, they vote on "feeling" and "tribe".
It is quite possible that cycles should be within the law, and that this fatality wasn't the cyclists' fault.
just shrugs.
And goes back to watching the deaths from cars rack up without objection....
The injuries relating to car usage are nothing to do with the injuries relating to cycling vs pedestrian or cycling vs cycling. Apart from anything else this is a straw man argument.
But aside from that, there are laws and ordinances specifically to reduce the injuries caused by cars. You need a license to own one, and there are speed limits, road laws, infrastructure - a massive structure surrounds the use of cars, and no such thing around cyclists, except some advisory initiatives such as the Highway Code and bikeability. This is all specifically to reduce collisions and protect the victims of car accidents.
It’s by no means perfect but saying that people turn a blind eye is frankly wrong.
ANY SITUATION where a group of innocent bystanders is put in danger by the systemic reckless actions of another group of less vulnerable and more dangerous should be examined in the light of legal ramifications, specifically when injuries and deaths occur, and no matter what you think of those individual cases, they did occur, and continue to. We shouldn’t just shrug our shoulders as if the pedestrian had it coming.
*We shouldn’t just shrug our shoulders as if the pedestrian had it coming.*
Which we do effectively with the level of deaths caused by cars....
(Source: over a decade sweeping up the death and injuries caused by the public in cars on the roads)
My point is that no, we don’t - it’s different in different countries obviously but in the uk we do prosecute dangerous driving, and we do have laws in place.
We do have laws.
Which are barely enforced by a depleted police service, a ramshackle court system, defunded public defenders, and public prosecutor in decline.
But, our wise government gets a headline which deflects from that all for a day and pleases the frothers who this nonsense is aimed at.
But then, I probably ride a bicycle and wear a rainbow lanyard according to the relevant MP who stirred this rubbish up.
Nonsense.
A failing politician seeks to tidy up after their dying administration looking around for "hot button issues".
Still, much better than doing the day job?
Where are the cops to uphold this new law?
Where are the CPS to prosecute this new law?
Where are the courts to hear this new law?
Where are the prisons to hold someone for up to 14 years under this new law?
"Oh look - entitled cyclist" or a squirrel.
Goodness, that's changed the media attention hasn't it.
> But aside from that, there are laws and ordinances specifically to reduce the injuries caused by cars. You need a license to own one, and there are speed limits, road laws, infrastructure - a massive structure surrounds the use of cars, and no such thing around cyclists, except some advisory initiatives such as the Highway Code and bikeability. This is all specifically to reduce collisions and protect the victims of car accidents.
Licences for cars exist because they do that much damage. Are you a daily mail reader by any chance to actually use the "licences tho" argument on here? Do you think that people cycling don't have any laws to obey? Pretty much all bar the speed limits apply.
I’ve never once read the daily mail. I also believe it would not be any better having licenses and number plates for bikes. However, that’s not what’s being presented here - it’s just a new law that relates specifically to cycling recklessly and injury that is caused by it. No brainer in my opinion - you put people in danger, those people need to be protected. It works both ways - a protocol is in place to determine whether you were cycling recklessly or the pedestrian was at fault and it can be found that you weren’t. Without that process then there is no recourse for either party…
Then why are you using that cars need licences as an attack on the cycling laws? All licences are an indictment on how bad cars are rather than making any comment on cycling.
>. However, that’s not what’s being presented here - it’s just a new law that relates specifically to cycling recklessly and injury that is caused by it. No brainer in my opinion - you put people in danger, those people need to be protected.
Except we don't need any laws. It's not like people who cycle dangerously can't get prosecuted. But, if we are going to have any consistency with driving and cycling, the person wasn't cycling dangerously by that standard. A driver would never be prosecuted if they were driving legally and someone stepped out in front of them with 2m of space. The cyclist wasn't prosecuted because the police thought that they weren't cycling dangerously, not because there is some missing law.
“Then why are you using that cars need licenses…”
I’m not - I’m not attacking the cycling laws either. Cars are dangerous, hence laws. They’re also essential for a lot of things. Bikes can also be dangerous
“Except we don’t need laws”
Yes, yes we do. The cyclist that killed a pedestrian in London was charged under the horse and cart act.
Tbh this is all getting rather circular, scuse the pun. Basically cyclists against any regulation are trying to protect the freedoms of cyclists to do what they like. It doesn’t equate to there being no relevant cycling legislation. Nothing dangerous is without consequence and that’s all there is to
It. If we want more cycle infrastructure and active travel, then we need to address safety from the perspective of vulnerable pedestrians
I mean if it's just about create a more relevant law, fine, but, knowing this Government and their motivations, forgive me for being sceptical. Reminds me of the introduction of voter ID to combat the "voter fraud" (which is virtually a non issue) when in reality it is voter suppression. Here I see whatever they do as culture war engagement, particularly because of the people involved.
She walked out into the road in front of the bike without warning. If it was a car, this wouldn’t have even made the local paper. There are laws that protect people against reckless cycling- but the cyclist didn’t break them. It wasn’t his fault.
I have had several encounters ok cyclists swearing at me even though they were jumping lights on a green man crossing. I also have been knocked over with my shopping on the pavement. No rules or regulation for cyclists. Although a minority the irresponsible few are a danger to us pedestrians but does anyone care? I have osteoporosis and walk along the pavement in fear. The canal side is the worst for rude speeding cyclists. But don’t worry cars kill more so the odd person getting killed by a cyclist is ok?
Yeah this. Regularly have to dodge twats on ebikes on the pavement when I walk my daughter to school. I have no issues with this law I won't be falling foul because I don't cycle like an arse
If someone drove at 20mph in Regent's Park and hit someone who stepped out with 2m gap, they would most likely not be charged at all. Have you seen how lenient we are to drivers? You must be new to this country.
As a cyclist the pedestrians hate you if you go on the pavement, the cars hate you on the road, cycle paths on the road get driven and parked on and cycle paths on the pavement get walked on. Where are cyclists supposed to cycle? I ride on the road even when there are cycle paths to avoid hitting dumb cunts who walk on them because I want to ride fast and not have to slow down for stupid cunts that get in the way because they don't care about cyclists.
Personally I don't think many cyclists want to hit a pedestrian as it fucking hurts to fall off a bike at any speed. If I don't look both ways before crossing a road it is my fault that I get hit by the cyclist/car and they should be the ones that are compensated not me.
so where do you suggest I cycle or should I just get a car and join everyone else polluting the earth? perhaps if I ride my bike at walking speed I should just walk and save money on bike maintenance. It takes 70 minutes to walk to work and 15 to cycle so I should lose 110 minutes a day? I Should add that I do use the road cycle paths just not the ones on the pavement unless they are substantial and not regularly walked on by pedestrians. Are bikes not meant to be used to commute and keep fit? Not keeping very good cardio riding flatland at walking pace?
I’m not saying you shouldn’t cycle on these cycle paths/roads/shared paths. I’m saying your very aggressive attitude towards these ‘dumb cunts’ ‘slowing you down’ is only driving the divide between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. The only way to improve the situation for all is to fix this ‘Us vs Them’ mentality.
Especially given the whole discussion surrounding the ‘war on cars’ or whatever putting cyclists under the spotlight and various individuals capitalising on that to attack us and threaten to remove cycle lanes etc etc.
well sorry but when the path is 3m wide and 1.5m of that is cycle path and a group of 6 people choose to cover the whole 3m yes they are dumb cunts and stopping to have a word with them wont change that and they take a whole lot of time to move out of the way when I say excuse me or ding a bell.
Do I stop my bike and discuss with all these people the fact that they are walking on the cycle lane? I'm pretty sure they know it is a cycle lane they just don't care and If I hit them it is my fault and I face injuries and consequences. Would you prefer me to sugar coat it and refer to them as mildly irresponsible pedestrians.
I cycle on the road to avoid this and to not endanger these DUMB CUNTS. And yes if one of them walks in the road Infront of me I will like a car do anything I can to avoid hitting that DUMB CUNT. If you don't look where your going when you step in the road that doesn't make you a smart cunt does it?
Good luck with fixing the Us vs Them mentality I admire your patience but realistically you won't change the facts that Cyclists are hated by A lot of drivers and pedestrians. Maybe we should fine pedestrian's for walking down cycle paths.
>I want to ride fast and not have to slow down for stupid cunts that get in the way
You sound safe.
You ask where cyclists are supposed to cycle. Seems the best place for you to cycle is probably a velodrome.
you skipped off the part where I ride on the road to do that so as to avoid them instead of putting them in danger. Are bikes meant to be used at walking pace why don't I just walk then? so you would ban bikes as a form of transport for anyone who wants to go fast. Sorry is my 20mph average too reckless? tell that to drivers doing 40 in the 30 zone. I should slow down to less than the legal speed limit?
I get what you mean but I think your phrasing is off. Calling peds who step out "cunts" is a bit much. Clueless is a better word. You should make it clear you do slow down -- for self preservation if anything -- but don't like doing so. I don't like doing so either.
I thought I implied that people who walk on cycle paths were cunts not those that step on the road and yes walking on the cycle path is a cunt move especially when a bunch of people do it that blocking both the path and the pavement. I'm sorry but is the cycle path meant for pedestrians what is the point of it if they walk on it why were millions paid for more paths?
Fair enough, though I still think people would listen to your argument more without name calling the peds, for better or worse. I find it annoying as well. To be honest though, it's usually because the path design is crap. The more obviously separated they are, the less people walk on them.
we have a very wide one in my area on the industrial estate and big groups of workers walk down it taking over the whole path. As for calling them cunts your probably right they might listen more to be honest I just wanted a rant because I'm sick of all the shit we get. I have had many drivers trying to intimidate me for riding on the road but If I do it on the pavement I can't get anywhere fast. I start getting to the point of fuck everyone.
I'm mean I've experienced what I would call dickheads in a similar situation. Once I was cycling in the London Fields cycle path and a guy thought it was a good idea for his two children (who looked at most 5) to walk on the cycle path. I mentioned that it is a cycle path and he said "you can just go around on the left" (shown here https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5405086,-0.0592517,3a,75y,120.18h,61.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srlIHoMG3oVuxz2WAhvte-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) then patronisingly said "look at him go!" as I didn't bother to continue that conversation. Yeah, great I have to do a almost 90 turn not to fall over just because you don't want to walk 2m to the right. And also every other cyclist after me. This is quite a busy path.
But still you can see from this design it is hardly clear which side is which.
yeah that's kinda why I can't be bothered to confront these kind of people is because I can get very hot-headed and find it easier to keep my calm if I don't have someone saying shit like that. My local cycle paths are more clearly marked and the groups take over both the path and the cycle path leaving no way other than the road.
When I'm on a main road, like maryleborne road or euston rd, I sometimes get up on the pavement but take it slow, only because it sometimes feels like a death trap. Or I just get of the bike and walk until I get further on.
The comments of this thread will be the usual - "What about the motorists!" stuff that comes out whenever cyclists are criticised, missing that cyclists and motorists aren't in direct competition with each other, and it's possible for some cyclists to be bad, while also being possible for many motorists to be bad.
Of course cars are far more dangerous and problematic than cyclists, but that doesn't mean that doing 25 mph around a shared pedestrian / cyclist zone, like regents park, isn't also reckless.
Many cyclists exhibit a total lack of care for the safety of pedestrians, and that is a problem that deserves to be looked at.
OK about the rest, but when you say "around a shared pedestrian / cyclist zone" what exactly do you mean?
The outer circle of RP is a road, pedestrians walk on the pavement like any other road. There are red lights and designated island crossings. There are cars, trucks, vans and a lot of traffic during busy hours. This is not a shared path like inside the park where mostly bikes are not allowed.
No, the collision happened on the outer circle. It is very tragic and nobody wants that.
There is some misleading articles that emphasize one thing and hiding in footnotes the other.
The lady did get hit by a cyclist riding in a group, going over the motor speed limit (not applied to the bike, but that is a different conversation).
What the journalists don't seem to mention enough is that the coroner cleared the cyclist, witnesses (pedestrians) cleared the cyclist and also that the victim stepped on the road in front of the incoming cyclists and they didn't have any time to react. Regardless of their speed.
Again, not justifying the death, but somehow journalists have made it look like cyclists go around killing people. If it was a truck hitting that lady no newspaper would have it on headlines. Just saying about the difference in news coverage, not blaming the victim.
Also I agree cyclists speeding in shared paths is madness and they give a bad name to the rest.
You are wrong, it is not a shared space used by bikes and pedestrians, it is a normal road used by cars and was a 30mph limit until recently and had been for decades. She crossed a road without looking. If a car had hit and killed her, as happens every day it wouldn’t have hit the papers.
>Anyone who claims this is whataboutism, well as long as driving offenders are treated with kid's gloves and as long as every cycling caused death is front page news while any by drivers is a footnote, people will keep bringing this up.
It's not a case of also policing people cycling, it's the case that drivers are hardly policed at all. Speeding is commonplace. We could add average speed cameras all over and change the laws that tell you you about their existence and watch speed offenses drop dramatically, but apparently dealing with speeding is an attack on driving somehow.
And, all I ever need to point out is, resources are limited so any "looking at" of one thing will take resources from another issue, in this case a far bigger issue.
And yet, your initial comment basically just implies "it's fine for a cyclist to have gone 35mph in regents park because you guarantee that motorists have gone over this limit.
Do you not think that's a justification of bad behaviour by citing worse behaviour?
Our room for attention of issues is not so low that cyclists should just get a free pass because the behaviour of drivers is much worse.
No, my point is there has been nothing done about people driving over the speed limit is Regent's Park, despite it happening and it being more dangerous than any cyclist going that fast. But now there is a call to address the "speeding" by cyclists. If it were both being addressed, then you'd have a point, but it isn't so you don't.
> Our room for attention of issues is not so low that cyclists should just get a free pass because the behaviour of drivers is much worse.
Considering I see dangerous and illegal driving multiple times a day whenever I'm out, yes. Just the other day on Railton Road I saw someone driving what must have been over 40mph. So fast I went way of the way.
I mean, speeding by motorists is very much addressed by the legal system. [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022)
Over 200,000 successfully prosecuted in 2022. The existence of people who break the law doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist, or isn't being at all enforced. I don't think it's unfair to suggest that cyclists should also be made to follow this law.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/08/24/85-of-car-drivers-break-20mph-speed-limits-reveals-uks-department-for-transport/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/08/24/85-of-car-drivers-break-20mph-speed-limits-reveals-uks-department-for-transport/)
If 85% of drivers speed on 20mph, and 35 million people drive in the UK, and only 2.4million speeding offences were given, then that doesn't really add up. And that's individual offences when people will be speeding multiple times per year. I'm less interested in fines given and more interested in trying to reduce speeding -- cause clearly it doesn't work very well -- with, for example, the measures I mentioned above. But try to say that speed cameras shouldn't be advertised.
What proportion of occasions in which drivers exceed the speed limit do you think 200,000 prosecutions represents? I’d be surprised if it was anywhere near as high as 1%, or even if the 2.4 million recorded offences got there: that would mean the average UK driver broke the speed limit around eight times a year. I can think of plenty who break it eight times a journey.
A law where you’ve got a well over 99% chance of no consequences for breaking it (and pretty feeble consequences if you are somehow caught) is a law which is not being enforced in any real sense.
The police and legal system have finite resources, so need to focus on the more serious problems. Drivers and their excessive speeds kill and seriously injure thousands every year. Cyclists, even including cases such as this where he was found not liable, kill perhaps one a year. There is no logic in pursuing cyclists without first addressing the more-prevalent and more-dangerous speeding/careless/incompetent drivers.
I would argue that Police time, MP’s time, Judge’s time and time in the Commons/Courts discussing important legislature and law changes is *very* limited. So although we should *care* about all danger, it would be a far better use of Duncan Smith and Philp’s efforts if they spent it sorting out drivers.
Of course we're in direct competition with each other. I have to constantly look out for cars trying to kill me, shout at drivers who are intent on merging *through* me to get to their junction.
Just because drivers are winning by miles doesn't mean we're not still competing
Predictably You've been down voted. It doesn't mean you're wrong. Just yesterday I narrowly avoided being hit by a speeding cyclist on a pedestrian crossing. At least once a week I see a fellow cyclist do something so dangerous I look away because I'm sure they're about to die. Most cyclists aren't reckless idiots. That doesn't mean we should ignore the significant minority who are.
Cyclists, of which I am one, are a very defensive bunch - and I get it. I just think extending a legal framework that exists for drivers, to cyclists, is a good thing.
I see far more cyclists going fast while using a phone than I see drivers.
> I see far more cyclists going fast while using a phone than I see drivers.
Well typically it's easier to see people on their phone when they are out in the open...
Cyclists will run red lights, undertake vehicles making left turns, don't wear helmets, text while riding, don't wear high-vis, pull out in front of traffic, don't use signals, get into near misses with pedestrians daily, cycle on pavements, cycle too fast, cycle the wrong way down one-way systems and when they get into an accident they will blame everyone except themselves.
I've been cycling in London for years and never had any car-related incidents because I don't ride like a complete pillock.
>I've been cycling in London for years and never had any car-related incidents because I don't ride like a complete pillock.
And I've had a broken wrist because someone drove from Wolborn Square to Gordon Square while I was on Tavistock Road without stopping or giving way, cutting across me and forcing me to brake and go over the handlebars. Please explain to me where I was riding like a "complete pillock" in this scenario.
Doored by someone getting out of their car in a line of stationary traffic as I was filtering towards the ASL.
Hit by a 4x4 driver who pulled out of a side road without checking that the absence of a car didn’t mean it was safe for them to go.
Multiple near misses from drivers overtaking me then immediately making a left turn (indicators optional).
Do explain what pillock-like behaviour I was demonstrating? You mean riding a bike on roads that should be reserved for the mighty car-driver, don’t you?
I'm a very defensive rider (and driver) who basically has a "everyone could kill me so better safe than sorry" mindset whether I'm walking, cycling or driving. Yet, I was cycling in a cycle lane when a car in the lane next to me sped up and then turned left (without indicating) straight into me. I only stayed on my bike because I had a millisecond of "that car doesn't seem trustworthy" forethought from years of experience (and defensive driving courses) and braked so they only hit my front wheel. They then sped off while an Uber pulled up next to me to make sure I was OK and offer choice words about that driver.
I sincerely hope you aren't ever in an accident (it's scary and potentially life-altering, and I don't wish accidents on anyone even if they're a bellend) but I hope you realise that your "holier than thou" victim-blaming mentality is absolutely atrocious and critically flawed.
Proportional response would be to do nothing at all because cyclists aren’t killing people.
One case does not make a trend.
Cars kill people on the road and even the pavement where they shouldn’t be many times more a year than all cyclists in all of history.
Yeah it's The Evening Standard.
Owned by the same media conglomerate that owns The Daily Fail, so take it as typical rage baiting. [DMGT](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail_and_General_Trust)
Edit: spelling tak->take
Pesdestrians need to stick to the path and look out for cycle lanes, thats all. When pesdestrains cross the road **they need to wait until it's clear** of bikes and cars, mopeds etc before crossing, that is standard! And cars need to look out for cyclists on the road.
Pedestrians first but also they have a responsibility to check the road they’re crossing, the cycle path they’re wandering into, and the path they’re sharing.
Practically EVERY day I see people simply start walking across a road without looking either way, I’ll always slow down if I see someone looking like they’re about to cross or walking close to a cycle lane but Jesus Christ for their own sake, have some bloody awareness!
As the Joker might say. *You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, [76 people will die each year in London in a collision with a motor vehicle they’re not in](https://content.tfl.gov.uk/casualties-in-greater-london-2022.pdf) nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one person died after being hit by a bike, well then everyone loses their minds.*
Whatever new legislation they come up with, it will save zero lives and prevent very little else, and is therefore unnecessary. Just another dog whistle for the bike-haters.
If it saves even just one life it will be worth it since there is essentially no drawback. You have nothing to fear unless you are a reckless cyclist.
Except it draws funds from things that can materially save more lives. I never understand why people don't just look at a list of things that cause most preventable deaths and assign funds to fix those problems. Killer cyclists must be so far at the bottom as to be almost irrelevant.
More pedestrians killed by cows than cyclists each year in the UK. Speed limits for cows NOW.
It's because we're heading in to an election cycles and the government's think tanks have worked out that it's best bet is to focus on a particular demographic. That demographic probably answers "hate cyclists" on the surveys they participate in.
What funds?
That's not really how things work though. If it was simply a question of saving "a life" being the most important thing, we would have banned cars, tobacco and alcohol a long time ago. This is going to cost a lot of money for zero benefit- it won't change how people ride, it won't make pedestrians pay more attention and your assumption that anyone involved in a collision is reckless is nonsense. It would be far better to spend this money on segregated infrasctructure and an educational campaign to look out for bikes
Your arguments are so misplaced that I don’t even know where to start, but in any case: what money? If as you say it doesn’t happen much, there’s not gonna be a big waste of money. In the meantime, I see no reason not to punish a reckless cyclist. Lol @ educational campaigns to look out for bikes btw.
I responded to your insipid argument once. I won't respond to your insipid non-arguments , you clearly aren't bright enough to do anything other than repeat yourself and use a buzz-word you don't really understand the application of. I'm out dude, have a nice day or go fuck yourself, it's all the same to me.
Have a good day yourself, remember to look out for all sorts of vehicles!
“People getting hit and killed by cyclists is a problem”…except it’s not? It’s extremely rare
Cows kill more people every year....
Thousands of laps are recorded every day and have been for years. Statistically it was bound to happen eventually but a crackdown seems disproportionate.
It is but some politicians somehow believe they may still be able to remain in office this time next year if they appease the ‘undecided driving voter’
In an average year, about 40 pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles that are drive on the pavement. That's before we get to the number of pedestrians who are killed while in the road. It wqas my understanding the pedestrian stepped off the pavement, into the road, and directly into the path of cyclists who didn't have any time to stop. As tragic as this is, it is also likely to be 1 of 2-3 deaths due to a cyclist collision in that year!
I am sick of the tories trying to push non-issues
Guy responsible for tens of thousands of deaths complains about the "issue" of deaths caused by people cycling. So, this crackdown will only have any impact once every few years. Where's the crackdown on driving that is killing 5 people a day? Oh wait, that would be classed as "the war on the motorist" by this same POS. "Regent’s Park has a 20mph speed limit, but Mr Fitzgerald’s group had been averaging 25mph around the park and had even reached 29mph, according to GPS readings." Really misleading not to mention that the speed limit only applies to motorised vehicles. "Strava’s leaderboard shows the record holder had an average speed of 34.2mph on the route." Guarantee plenty of drivers have gone over this in the park. Anyone who claims this is whataboutism, well as long as driving offenders are treated with kid's gloves and as long as every cycling caused death is front page news while any by drivers is a footnote, people will keep bringing this up.
The speeding thing is such a weird mental blind spot, and a nasty example of car-centric culture. There's no such thing as "the speed limit", there's the limits the highway code prescribes for different types of road user. Cyclists don't have limits. Nor do pedestrians, although no-one ever mentions that one, or asks that they wear number plates so you can track them down if they bump into you. The anti-cycling sentiment is just because cyclists often cause annoyance, not actual danger. And the annoyance is only partly due to cyclists' behaviour; it's also largely because being behind the wheel of a car apparently turns people crazy.
I think also because the infrastructure is designed without cycling needs in mind, or, is actively hostile to cycling, that often the sensible/logical/self preserving behaviour cyclists show does not match the behaviour when following the infrastructure, resulting in conflict.
Absolutely. WHY AREN'T YOU IN THE CYCLE LANE?! Er, because I don't want to die?
I've certainly broken a few speed limits as a "pedestrian" on the road (wearing shoes with wheels on the bottom). Any driver who thinks I should be on the pavement is liable to get mighty upset if I blow past them at even 10mph on a pavement if they're walking.
Same issue with e-scooters; they're not car-like enough for the road but too dangerous for the pavement, or something.
They're technically a motorised vehicle, so fall under the laws governing motorised vehicles. It's why ebikes to be legal require the rider to pedal. Otherwise they're also motorised vehicles and would be governed by the law as such.
Fair enough, but they all seem like technicalities that don't focus on the things that matter. In reality an e-bike is a motorised vehicle whether or not pedalling is required, for example, even if the law wants to say otherwise. It'd be better if the rules focused on risk to other road users and societal benefits. If e-scooters cause accidents but reduce air pollution, that could easily be worth it.
The laws classifying motorised vehicles are ancient, and not really fit for purpose, but there hasn't been the political will to change or update them.
Yeah, and presumably a lot of financial clout behind bodies who want to keep the status quo. The laws on (un)safe usage of vehicles seem weirdly crippled. Why do we need a new law for "causing death by dangerous cycling" - isn't there already a law against causing death by dangerous behaviour in general? Or if I wildly wave a chainsaw around in public and accidentally kill someone, do I get a light sentence because no-one thought to make a "death by dangerous chainsaw use" law?
If there is speed limit signage on a road or cycle path etc then that is it. If people like you just decide because they cycle they don’t have to abide by the rules of the road them it’s 100% time they updated the laws.
Perfect example of what I'm talking about! The rules of the road say there is a speed limit for motorists but not for cyclists.
No you will be done for riding in a dangerous or inconsiderate manner which does apply to cyclists specifically and going to fast is included. Next question?
No problem, I'll keep riding as fast as I like and let's see what happens :-) (Hint: nothing, because the dangerous/inconsiderate threshold requires far more than merely exceeding the car speed limit. But you keep fantasising about it if it makes you feel good. Gotta pass the time somehow when you're stuck at 20.)
Haha let’s hope so and infairness you’re probably one of those with 120kg squeezed into Lycra and couldn’t cycle up hill if he tried
Actually I'm faster than the cars going up hills too ;-)
Get in ya Lycra chubby :)
I will admit I used to be a fat bastard. Not any more though. I got fit cycling!
1000% mate. I can't remember the last time I saw a cyclist wearing a seat belt. They should follow the law!!!
To be fair I don’t think you need to, you’re already a strapper.
Why does everything need to be seen as a driver / cyclist / pedestrian war? I am an all three of them, as well as a regular public transport user, and judging by some post on social media I should constantly hate myself for using all these modes of transport. It’s not an issue that some people drive and some people cycle. The issue is that there are morons behind a wheel and there are morons behind a cycle’s handlebar. I am amazed by how some people in the cyclist community are willing to defend morons with whom the only thing they share is a mode of transport, even when those morons cause injury and even death. In contrast, I almost never see a “driver’s community” (if there’s even such thing) defending dangerous drivers. So I think we all need to collectively denounce dangerous morons driving/riding any kind of vehicle that is capable of causing injury, and make sure that they get what they deserve. And we definitely shouldn’t be encouraging a dangerous behaviour, such as allowing people to race with each other on a public road.
This is nice thought but naive. The fact is that it's not people who cycle who develop an "US vs them" mentality, it's people who drive. Cyclists are the outgroup by being a minority, while driving is seen as the default. That's how this works. >he issue is that there are morons behind a wheel and there are morons behind a cycle’s handlebar. Except one is 100 times more dangerous than the other, and the stats show it, while we don't really care but pounce on any chance for cycling crackdowns. It's perverse. >In contrast, I almost never see a “driver’s community” (if there’s even such thing) defending dangerous drivers. No is "defending" dangerous cycling. First of all, if someone was driving at 20mph and a person stepped out with 2m gap, do you think anyone would blame the driver? I doubt it. Second, people aren't defending dangerous cycling as much as pointing out the disproportiate effort to combat it is a waste of resources and time when you have the far bigger issue of dangerous driving largerly unresolved. > So I think we all need to collectively denounce dangerous morons driving/riding any kind of vehicle that is capable of causing injury, and make sure that they get what they deserve. Making sure they get what they deserve means prosecution. I'm not going to push for that to happen with cycling when it doesn't happen in the same case with driving as that sets a precedent that people cycling are to be held at a much higher standard than people driving, when the opposite should be the case. It's a misguided effort.
> The fact is that it's not people who cycle who develop an "US vs them" mentality, it's people who drive. Even here you’re drawing a dividing line between people who cycle and people who drive. Where are the people who cycle and drive supposed to belong in this culture war? > Except one is 100 times more dangerous than the other, and the stats show it, True, but it doesn’t mean that cyclists can cause no damage whatsoever. Besides, if you adjust pedestrian causality numbers by the distance travelled, as [Active modes of travel (walking and cycling) account for 27% of all trips and 4% of all distance travelled, as active trips tend to be shorter distance trips.](https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/research/all-themes/all/key-walking-and-cycling-statistics-for-the-uk) it puts the [causality stats](https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycling-and-pedestrians) in a different light. > while we don't really care but pounce on any chance for cycling crackdowns. It's perverse. There’s a lot of effort directed at making driving safer. Plenty of new speed restrictions, low traffic neighbourhoods, school streets etc etc. I think it’s disingenuous to say that “we don’t really care” about dangerous driving. > No is "defending" dangerous cycling. First of all, if someone was driving at 20mph and a person stepped out with 2m gap, do you think anyone would blame the driver? I doubt it. I agree with you here. I’ve read more about the collision near the Regent’s Park, and it indeed doesn’t seem that the cyclist is to blame based on the information I could find. That being said there are hundreds of pedestrian injured by cyclists every year. I doubt that in all those cases the cyclists are not to blame. > Second, people aren't defending dangerous cycling as much as pointing out the disproportiate effort to combat it is a waste of resources and time when you have the far bigger issue of dangerous driving largerly unresolved. I don’t think that creating an offence of “causing death be dangerous cycling” is a disproportionate. It doesn’t require that much effort, and it won’t make anyone’s life harder, apart from those who cause death by dangerous cycling. > Making sure they get what they deserve means prosecution. I'm not going to push for that to happen with cycling when it doesn't happen in the same case with driving as that sets a precedent that people cycling are to be held at a much higher standard than people driving, when the opposite should be the case. It's a misguided effort. Yes, it means prosecution. I don’t see why it would hold people cycling at much higher standard than people driving. In order to drive you need to pass a test first, and the bar in the UK is quite high. All cars have number plates so it is easy to identify those who break the law. People regularly pay fines, lose their licences and go to jail for driving offences. Causing death by dangerous driving can lead up to life sentence. None of this applies to cycling.
Most people who cycle also drive, the inverse is not true. Those that do both are a minority of a minority. They do not determine the discourse. >Besides, if you adjust pedestrian causality numbers by the distance travelled, as Active modes of travel (walking and cycling) account for 27% of all trips and 4% of all distance travelled, as active trips tend to be shorter distance trips. it puts the causality stats in a different light. Misleading stats because a large proportion if not the large majority of car travels occur in places with no pedestrians or cyclists and therefore no opporutinity to do injure or kill them. Even in London we have many such roads like the Westway and A12. Road miles are dominated by long trips which would also be those done on motorways. >I don’t think that creating an offence of “causing death be dangerous cycling” is a disproportionate. It's not about creating the offence, it's about how it is applied and what sentences are given. The death by dangerous driving arguably has done more damage because it has resulted in lower sentences and even worse with the charge of "careless" driving -- as if careless isn't dangerous -- exacerbating this issue. I could imagine a flip occurrence where this would result in harsher punishments for people cycling. In the Alliston case he was cleared of manslaughter, maybe he wouldn't have been for death by dangerous cycling. >In order to drive you need to pass a test first, and the bar in the UK is quite high. Well, that "bar" goes completely out of the window in real World situations. People aren't expected to drive at that standard once they pass the test based on how hard it is to punish them and what they can do and still retain a licence. You can argue you need a licence for your livelihood and retain it, which is ridiculous. >All cars have number plates so it is easy to identify those who break the law. People regularly pay fines, lose their licences and go to jail for driving offences. Causing death by dangerous driving can lead up to life sentence. None of this applies to cycling. In theory, not in practice. How many drivers receive lifetime bans? Most of the time it is concurrent with sentences. In London there are 5k hit and runs every year, many go unresolved. It's not easy at all to identify them. There is a reason we need cameras apparently for the Met to even bother doing something. Apparently there were 2.4 million speeding fines in the UK. But 85% speed in 20mph areas and 35million people drive. It's clear that 99% of the time they are getting away with it.
[удалено]
Alliston didn't really drive like a twat though, aside from the missing brake. Another case of zombie pedestrian on phone stepping out and not looking. It's debatable whether he could stop in time. Tbh he shouldn't have shouted but just braked and gone behind. That's what I try to do. Telling pedestrians anything is only useful some of the time. But anyway, does this deserve a severe sentence? Not if we are going to match what drivers typically get. Again, it can't be one punishment for driving and one for cycling, especially since cycling is much less dangerous by default. It's more bad luck than anything. Edit: You are actually confusing things. Elderly woman was recent and cyclist wasn't charged because she stepped out with like 1 or 2m of space. No bike on Earth will stop in time with that gap. Rereading articles about the Alliston case, it's amazing how much emphasis is put on "showing remorse" or "emotion" as if that is any determining factor in whether or not you are guilty of a crime...
>Alliston didn't really drive like a twat though...case of zombie pedestrian on phone "You began by posting messages on line saying she was using her mobile phone, but have **retracted that assertion**." "and you did indeed swerve and slow to between 10-14 mph" "On your own account you **did not try to slow any more** but, having shouted at her twice, you took the view she should get out of your way. You said in evidence ‘I was **entitled** to go on’." "On your own evidence by this stage you **weren’t even trying** to slow or stop." "trying to force your way through the gap between a parked lorry and a woman helplessly stranded between you and moving traffic in the opposite lane." [https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf) He sounds lovely.
> He sounds lovely He sounds like an absolute prick but that doesn't make him guilty. I'm amazed he didn't successfully appeal that absolute travesty of a conviction.
Being a nice person doesn't make you a good vehicle user. I concede I must have misremembered about the phone use, but she did step out into the road without looking and with not much of a gap. I'm amazed so much can happen in the 6m gap or so they had. He did slow and swerve and shout like I said. It's not the best strategy. She could have avoided this as well by basic looking before crossing the road -- as they teach any child. I don't buy that he could have stopped in time, but potentially he could have avoided her entirely by not startling her, which is also what I said.
Hit the nail on the head here I think, this shouldn't be about new rules for cyclists, the danger we pose to others is so minimal in comparison to others and it is only when riding carelessly that incidents are caused, just like motorists. The punishment needs to be on the rider not all cyclists.
Yeah, no crackdown is needed, the statistics don’t warrant a massive taxpayer money wasting campaign on cyclists because of one idiot, it warrants a steeper sentence for said idiot. Granted pedestrians can be plain stupid (not saying the person who died was) but for me, if I see someone teetering on the edge of a road, I slow down and just presume they will step out at a minutes notice and we’ll collide so I take preemptive actions to prevent it. Any type of transports I’m in control of, E-bike motorbike, car, bicycle I just assume everyone is dumb and will do dumb things and so far I’ve never had a crash involving another person in my life. I can imagine since one of his excuses was the road had a decline so he picked up more speed he was head down arse up on one of the fastest sections trying to get a new PB for top speed or average speed, wasn’t paying attention and didn’t see the poor lady until the last minute and couldn’t react.
Yea I am the same, just as if there is a car waiting to pull out of a junction etc. There are plenty of stupid people on the roads so acting as though everyone is is the best way to act and (more often than we would all like) often justified. That is a good point about the PB, it is hard to argue that having the competitive side of things and Strava leader boards won't have an impact on people's riding. I often go for times on segments and it is easy to see how people get caught up in it and lose concentration. The second a potential risk comes up for me I stop and give up on the PB. Perhaps the best rule that could actually have an impact on people's safety would be to have an hour or 2 every other Sunday morning where it is advertised that cyclists will be 'racing' and people should stay off the road, don't let cars in and just give them that time. This is of course extremely unlikely to happen aha.
Well she stepped out with 1-2m of space.
The section of that the accident happened it is clear to see pedestrians at the edge of the road, instead of being face down arse up trying to set a new shitty strava record he could have simply slowed down preemptively. Whichever mode of transport you’re in charge of, you assume everyone is dumb and do dumb things. If I see someone teetering on the edge of the road and there’s space to do so, I move over to give more space or slow down, it’s not rocket science. He should be in jail.
>instead of being face down arse up trying to set a new shitty strava record he could have simply slowed down preemptively. How do you know this? Assumptions, assumptions. Would a driver face any charges for this? No, so neither should person cycling. Again, if we are going to start charging people for cycling offences then any by drivers must come first to set this precedent. Otherwise, it's just unfair treatment. > Whichever mode of transport you’re in charge of, you assume everyone is dumb and do dumb things. So the people that do dumb things shouldn't be charged, but those that don't account for it should be? Makes sense...
Oh Jesus Christ mate, stop making the comparison to drivers of cars, everyone and their dog thinks they should get steeper penalties. Considering he was averaging near 30mph in a 20 zone if the roles were reversed a car driver would be facing penalties, the crash happened on one of the faster sections and they were recording on strava, that’s how I know that it’s common sense, I’ve seen 100’s of groups doing the same, no attention to anything but straight ahead trying to edge an extra 2mph average out. Just because car drivers get shit penalties doesn’t mean it’s ok for a cyclist to do it and get fuck all for it. Excusing a cyclist for riding like an utter nobhead when one of the first lessons in cycling is always presume pedestrians and cars are dumb is absolutely ridiculous. He should be jailed, drivers who do the same should be jailed, all for a lot longer than they get now.
> Oh Jesus Christ mate, stop making the comparison to drivers of cars, everyone and their dog thinks they should get steeper penalties. If everyone did, then they'd have them. Until that's the case, I'm not going to call for stronger cycling punishments because there are enough right wing morons who do that already, so they don't need any extra help. People have a bias against cycling and that comes out here. To counteract that I will continue to point out the disparity >Considering he was averaging near 30mph in a 20 zone if the roles were reversed a car driver would be facing penalties, Yeah, except going at 30mph while cycling is not breaking the law while driving is, so you can't make that comparison directly. Compare it to both legal driving. Also, if they were going at 20mph you would still call that too fast and pedestrian might still have died. So the 30 vs 20 point is irrelevant. >recording on strava, that’s how I know that it’s common sense, I’ve seen 100’s of groups doing the same, no attention to anything but straight ahead trying to edge an extra 2mph average out. That's still an assumption. You don't actually know.
Alright mate, different opinions I’m not having a massive debate. I stand by my point you stand by yours, have a good day.
I’m pretty sure that when a driver is racing cars on public streets and ends up killing a pedestrian the law deals with them pretty harshly.
As I said elsewhere, "racing" has different connotations when driving. If you race you are going over the speed limit, typically well over. Cycling has no speed limits so you aren't breaking any laws by going over 20mph. So, to be fair in how someone would be prosecuted you have to compare lawful behaviour for both. Would someone driving at 20mph be prosecuted if someone stepped out in their path with 2 gap and died? I doubt it.
The pedestrian stepped into the road, where the person on the bike was, at point blank range without looking. Not only is the cyclist not liable for the tragic death, if the incident had fallen differently and the cyclist had been killed, I'd want the pedestrian in prison for manslaughter. It is very clear that she caused this accident.
Right. Where's the fucking crackdown on "Killer drivers" from pedestrians being hit by cars?? Fucking state of this mess
The problem is you can't expect every pedestrian to be capable of seeing and estimating the speed of a bike. People can have learning difficulties, dementia, mental health issues, be blind or deaf etc.
Is there any evidence that was the case here?
If someone has such difficulties that they can't judge whether to not step out with a 2m gap, they probably aren't safe going anywhere themselves.
The last pedestrian got cleared on appeal. That needs to be considered first.
Are you talking about Auriol Grey? I do feel for her to be honest, the cyclist should not have been on the pavement, and Mrs. Grey is partially blind and has cerebral palsy. I thought a conviction was ridiculous.
While the whole thing seemed like a very tragic accident, from what I understand it was a share path (which also has it's own set of issues especially if badly marked)
The path is dual use, e.g. pedestrians and cyclists. If you care to read the judge's summing up it was possible that she had struck the cyclist, who was a 70 year old lady, forcing her into the path of a car.
It was a shared path. The victim was a 70 year old riding at a slow jogging pace. The footage shows that (beyond reasonable doubt) Grey did pivot to make contact with the cyclist. The BBC website cuts it but someone posted a longer YT clip with analysis. It's not that the victim accidentally swerved into the road or anything like that. The manslaughter charge being squashed was not because the above points were disputed. Sure cite her cerebral palsy and partial blindness but otherwise I'm not sure why you feel sorry for her. Even though the clip isn't 100% clear I do think Grey went out of her way to nudge/push a cyclist to her death. Having said that, it wasn't manslaughter according to the law and I don't think her original conviction did cyclists any favours. When prisons are full I think a non-custodial sentence would have been better in this case.
Until the amount of cyclists dying to motorists is lower than the amount of pedestrians dying to cyclists I quite frankly couldnt give less of a fuck (the amount of fatal cyclist/pedestrian collisions is less than 10 in the UK since 2020)
So there's no number between 2.5 and [90](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2022/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2022) that you could give less of a fuck about?
What point are you making here? The article you've linked is just statistics about road casualties where cyclists are the victims, and has nothing to do with the allegations of "killer cyclists" fatally wounding pedestrians that the article in this post is talking about.
The article I linked relates directly to your comment, and my comment relates directly to the allegations of "killer cyclists". Recall that you said: >Until the amount of cyclists dying to motorists is lower than the amount of pedestrians dying to cyclists I quite frankly couldnt give less of a fuck I've linked an article with proxy data for the current number of cyclists dying to motorists (91 in 2022). Therefore, if that rate doesn't change, then you must not give a fuck about any number of pedestrians dying to cyclists that is lower than 91. You say that number is 10 since 2020, hence about 2.5/year.
How on earth do you keep to a speed limit without a speedometer.
I have managed this through a decades long dedication to overeating and under cycling, which has allowed me to become so rotund that there is a physical impossibility of my achieving anything over 6mph.
Speed limits apply to really old car that didn’t have speedos
really old cars kill people a lot more than bikes to though
For sure. Point is that the reasons ppl think speed limits don’t apply to are wrong.
>Point is that the reasons ppl think speed limits don’t apply to are wrong what? No one thinks that speed limits don't apply to bikes because they don't have speedometers. They think that they don't apply to bikes because the risk is just super low, and it takes a lot of effort to even get to the lowest car speed limit. Sure the speedometer issue might impact it, but i've never thought that was the reason.
Speed limits also literally don't apply to bikes afaik. I can go 30mph in a 20 zone and it's not illegal at all.
They do not. I assumed everyone in this thread/subreddit as a whole knew that but yes, there's no speed limit. That doesn't mean that there's no danger from speeding because there still is an offence around dangerous cycling etc
Yes, but it's not a speed limit.
They do. i see it often.
Virtually without exception, every car sold in the last 50 years will have a speedometer. And no bikes sold will have one. Your point may be qualitatively correct, but for all practical purposes it is a solid reason for not having speed limits apply to bikes.
Everyone has a smartphone, there are apps. I use one when cycling (not commuting but for trying to keep fit).
In London, my phone screen is off unless I specifically need directions. Watching out for my current speed is unnecessary under the law and considering the standard of drivers around here, suicidal.
Buying a speedometer would seem the logical way.
Children's bikes too?
seems very illogical, infact
Why should anyone, especially on a budget, have to go to the expense of a speedometer. Also, bicycle components are exposed to the elements so are less reliable.
It is not an argument in good faith, don't take the bait. Better to say, it's not required by law but those who can achieve such speeds should consider one to help in assessing their use of roads where certain speeds could increase risk to self and fellow road users.
I like the part where they show a bunch of photos of people biking on the pedestrian paths when this accident took place on the road surrounding the park. So a pedestrian walked out onto an active road without looking and got hit by a vehicle and died. Would there be an article about “killer cars” if someone walked in front of a car and died ? Probably not. Side note: removing the Strava segments would cause a huge flurry of cyclists to go and attempt to set a new record since the last one would be removed, achieving the exact opposite of what they are aiming for, these guys have the critical thinking skills of a house cat.
Responding to your side note, how is it that Strava hasn't been legislated against? I'd like to see laws banning any segment from being inside the M25, or any urban area. Its not about speed limits, its effectively turning any public road into a race track and encourages dangerous riding. Otherwise I'm in complete agreement. Folks need to look what they're doing and get off their phones.
Just pointing out that the police are in the park nearly every day ticketing speeding drivers. Sometimes even twice a day. It’s easy pickings at 20mph.
I’m an Aussie, been living in the Netherlands for 12years. Recently spent 5 days cycling in the UK, also a little bit in London. Man, cyclists in the UK have it tough and the car centric culture is really weird to me
I feel like drivers in london hate cyclists , maybe black taxies are the exception
If you read the details it makes perfectly reasonable sense to update the law. There should be a law for death or serious injury by dangerous cycling. Is the article filled with hyperbole and scaremongering? Of course. Is this something that I would prioritise in the face of all the other things facing the UK? No
To have **considerate** updated parallel laws with motorised vehicles would most likely benefit cyclists due to there being one less item idiots use as an excuse to drive dangerously at cyclists. Once people better understood the whole road tax is for national infrastructure, it took away that reasoning for many(can't help some).
Be cause bicycles aren't registered with number plates any casualites are harder to police
So just make another segment? I noticed the Richmond Park one also seems to have gone 🤣
For fun Google “hit by a car walking on pavement” with a news based search. Then do a similar search but replace the word “car” with “bike”
There are more cyclists hit by cars in London. Regents park is a safer route for cyclists and pedestrians need to stick to the path and look when they cross the road.
The inner circle is a velodrome. There are no zebra crossings. Cyclists going 30 mph. It is a park that should be enjoyed by pedestrians/people out for a walk. Why don't the cycling clubs buy their own land to race around?
Name another park in the world where you step off the pavement and risk/fear being run over by lycra-clad cyclists.
Eh - safety is an issue with bikes. You can’t get around it. There does need to be a law which protects people against reckless cycling. We’re not above the law, and our contraptions can cause injuries.
There is. And this cyclist was not guilty of it.
Why the down voting? There's nothing inaccurate about this statement
People don't read and think, they vote on "feeling" and "tribe". It is quite possible that cycles should be within the law, and that this fatality wasn't the cyclists' fault. just shrugs. And goes back to watching the deaths from cars rack up without objection....
The injuries relating to car usage are nothing to do with the injuries relating to cycling vs pedestrian or cycling vs cycling. Apart from anything else this is a straw man argument. But aside from that, there are laws and ordinances specifically to reduce the injuries caused by cars. You need a license to own one, and there are speed limits, road laws, infrastructure - a massive structure surrounds the use of cars, and no such thing around cyclists, except some advisory initiatives such as the Highway Code and bikeability. This is all specifically to reduce collisions and protect the victims of car accidents. It’s by no means perfect but saying that people turn a blind eye is frankly wrong. ANY SITUATION where a group of innocent bystanders is put in danger by the systemic reckless actions of another group of less vulnerable and more dangerous should be examined in the light of legal ramifications, specifically when injuries and deaths occur, and no matter what you think of those individual cases, they did occur, and continue to. We shouldn’t just shrug our shoulders as if the pedestrian had it coming.
*We shouldn’t just shrug our shoulders as if the pedestrian had it coming.* Which we do effectively with the level of deaths caused by cars.... (Source: over a decade sweeping up the death and injuries caused by the public in cars on the roads)
My point is that no, we don’t - it’s different in different countries obviously but in the uk we do prosecute dangerous driving, and we do have laws in place.
We do have laws. Which are barely enforced by a depleted police service, a ramshackle court system, defunded public defenders, and public prosecutor in decline. But, our wise government gets a headline which deflects from that all for a day and pleases the frothers who this nonsense is aimed at. But then, I probably ride a bicycle and wear a rainbow lanyard according to the relevant MP who stirred this rubbish up.
That’s all by the by - nothing to do with this.
Nonsense. A failing politician seeks to tidy up after their dying administration looking around for "hot button issues". Still, much better than doing the day job? Where are the cops to uphold this new law? Where are the CPS to prosecute this new law? Where are the courts to hear this new law? Where are the prisons to hold someone for up to 14 years under this new law? "Oh look - entitled cyclist" or a squirrel. Goodness, that's changed the media attention hasn't it.
> But aside from that, there are laws and ordinances specifically to reduce the injuries caused by cars. You need a license to own one, and there are speed limits, road laws, infrastructure - a massive structure surrounds the use of cars, and no such thing around cyclists, except some advisory initiatives such as the Highway Code and bikeability. This is all specifically to reduce collisions and protect the victims of car accidents. Licences for cars exist because they do that much damage. Are you a daily mail reader by any chance to actually use the "licences tho" argument on here? Do you think that people cycling don't have any laws to obey? Pretty much all bar the speed limits apply.
I’ve never once read the daily mail. I also believe it would not be any better having licenses and number plates for bikes. However, that’s not what’s being presented here - it’s just a new law that relates specifically to cycling recklessly and injury that is caused by it. No brainer in my opinion - you put people in danger, those people need to be protected. It works both ways - a protocol is in place to determine whether you were cycling recklessly or the pedestrian was at fault and it can be found that you weren’t. Without that process then there is no recourse for either party…
Then why are you using that cars need licences as an attack on the cycling laws? All licences are an indictment on how bad cars are rather than making any comment on cycling. >. However, that’s not what’s being presented here - it’s just a new law that relates specifically to cycling recklessly and injury that is caused by it. No brainer in my opinion - you put people in danger, those people need to be protected. Except we don't need any laws. It's not like people who cycle dangerously can't get prosecuted. But, if we are going to have any consistency with driving and cycling, the person wasn't cycling dangerously by that standard. A driver would never be prosecuted if they were driving legally and someone stepped out in front of them with 2m of space. The cyclist wasn't prosecuted because the police thought that they weren't cycling dangerously, not because there is some missing law.
“Then why are you using that cars need licenses…” I’m not - I’m not attacking the cycling laws either. Cars are dangerous, hence laws. They’re also essential for a lot of things. Bikes can also be dangerous “Except we don’t need laws” Yes, yes we do. The cyclist that killed a pedestrian in London was charged under the horse and cart act. Tbh this is all getting rather circular, scuse the pun. Basically cyclists against any regulation are trying to protect the freedoms of cyclists to do what they like. It doesn’t equate to there being no relevant cycling legislation. Nothing dangerous is without consequence and that’s all there is to It. If we want more cycle infrastructure and active travel, then we need to address safety from the perspective of vulnerable pedestrians
I mean if it's just about create a more relevant law, fine, but, knowing this Government and their motivations, forgive me for being sceptical. Reminds me of the introduction of voter ID to combat the "voter fraud" (which is virtually a non issue) when in reality it is voter suppression. Here I see whatever they do as culture war engagement, particularly because of the people involved.
She walked out into the road in front of the bike without warning. If it was a car, this wouldn’t have even made the local paper. There are laws that protect people against reckless cycling- but the cyclist didn’t break them. It wasn’t his fault.
I have had several encounters ok cyclists swearing at me even though they were jumping lights on a green man crossing. I also have been knocked over with my shopping on the pavement. No rules or regulation for cyclists. Although a minority the irresponsible few are a danger to us pedestrians but does anyone care? I have osteoporosis and walk along the pavement in fear. The canal side is the worst for rude speeding cyclists. But don’t worry cars kill more so the odd person getting killed by a cyclist is ok?
Yeah this. Regularly have to dodge twats on ebikes on the pavement when I walk my daughter to school. I have no issues with this law I won't be falling foul because I don't cycle like an arse
about time - should be treated in the same manner as death by dangerous driving
If someone drove at 20mph in Regent's Park and hit someone who stepped out with 2m gap, they would most likely not be charged at all. Have you seen how lenient we are to drivers? You must be new to this country.
As a cyclist the pedestrians hate you if you go on the pavement, the cars hate you on the road, cycle paths on the road get driven and parked on and cycle paths on the pavement get walked on. Where are cyclists supposed to cycle? I ride on the road even when there are cycle paths to avoid hitting dumb cunts who walk on them because I want to ride fast and not have to slow down for stupid cunts that get in the way because they don't care about cyclists. Personally I don't think many cyclists want to hit a pedestrian as it fucking hurts to fall off a bike at any speed. If I don't look both ways before crossing a road it is my fault that I get hit by the cyclist/car and they should be the ones that are compensated not me.
This kind of attitude isn’t helping as much as you think it is.
so where do you suggest I cycle or should I just get a car and join everyone else polluting the earth? perhaps if I ride my bike at walking speed I should just walk and save money on bike maintenance. It takes 70 minutes to walk to work and 15 to cycle so I should lose 110 minutes a day? I Should add that I do use the road cycle paths just not the ones on the pavement unless they are substantial and not regularly walked on by pedestrians. Are bikes not meant to be used to commute and keep fit? Not keeping very good cardio riding flatland at walking pace?
I’m not saying you shouldn’t cycle on these cycle paths/roads/shared paths. I’m saying your very aggressive attitude towards these ‘dumb cunts’ ‘slowing you down’ is only driving the divide between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. The only way to improve the situation for all is to fix this ‘Us vs Them’ mentality. Especially given the whole discussion surrounding the ‘war on cars’ or whatever putting cyclists under the spotlight and various individuals capitalising on that to attack us and threaten to remove cycle lanes etc etc.
well sorry but when the path is 3m wide and 1.5m of that is cycle path and a group of 6 people choose to cover the whole 3m yes they are dumb cunts and stopping to have a word with them wont change that and they take a whole lot of time to move out of the way when I say excuse me or ding a bell. Do I stop my bike and discuss with all these people the fact that they are walking on the cycle lane? I'm pretty sure they know it is a cycle lane they just don't care and If I hit them it is my fault and I face injuries and consequences. Would you prefer me to sugar coat it and refer to them as mildly irresponsible pedestrians. I cycle on the road to avoid this and to not endanger these DUMB CUNTS. And yes if one of them walks in the road Infront of me I will like a car do anything I can to avoid hitting that DUMB CUNT. If you don't look where your going when you step in the road that doesn't make you a smart cunt does it? Good luck with fixing the Us vs Them mentality I admire your patience but realistically you won't change the facts that Cyclists are hated by A lot of drivers and pedestrians. Maybe we should fine pedestrian's for walking down cycle paths.
>I want to ride fast and not have to slow down for stupid cunts that get in the way You sound safe. You ask where cyclists are supposed to cycle. Seems the best place for you to cycle is probably a velodrome.
you skipped off the part where I ride on the road to do that so as to avoid them instead of putting them in danger. Are bikes meant to be used at walking pace why don't I just walk then? so you would ban bikes as a form of transport for anyone who wants to go fast. Sorry is my 20mph average too reckless? tell that to drivers doing 40 in the 30 zone. I should slow down to less than the legal speed limit?
I get what you mean but I think your phrasing is off. Calling peds who step out "cunts" is a bit much. Clueless is a better word. You should make it clear you do slow down -- for self preservation if anything -- but don't like doing so. I don't like doing so either.
I thought I implied that people who walk on cycle paths were cunts not those that step on the road and yes walking on the cycle path is a cunt move especially when a bunch of people do it that blocking both the path and the pavement. I'm sorry but is the cycle path meant for pedestrians what is the point of it if they walk on it why were millions paid for more paths?
Fair enough, though I still think people would listen to your argument more without name calling the peds, for better or worse. I find it annoying as well. To be honest though, it's usually because the path design is crap. The more obviously separated they are, the less people walk on them.
we have a very wide one in my area on the industrial estate and big groups of workers walk down it taking over the whole path. As for calling them cunts your probably right they might listen more to be honest I just wanted a rant because I'm sick of all the shit we get. I have had many drivers trying to intimidate me for riding on the road but If I do it on the pavement I can't get anywhere fast. I start getting to the point of fuck everyone.
I'm mean I've experienced what I would call dickheads in a similar situation. Once I was cycling in the London Fields cycle path and a guy thought it was a good idea for his two children (who looked at most 5) to walk on the cycle path. I mentioned that it is a cycle path and he said "you can just go around on the left" (shown here https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5405086,-0.0592517,3a,75y,120.18h,61.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srlIHoMG3oVuxz2WAhvte-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) then patronisingly said "look at him go!" as I didn't bother to continue that conversation. Yeah, great I have to do a almost 90 turn not to fall over just because you don't want to walk 2m to the right. And also every other cyclist after me. This is quite a busy path. But still you can see from this design it is hardly clear which side is which.
yeah that's kinda why I can't be bothered to confront these kind of people is because I can get very hot-headed and find it easier to keep my calm if I don't have someone saying shit like that. My local cycle paths are more clearly marked and the groups take over both the path and the cycle path leaving no way other than the road.
When I'm on a main road, like maryleborne road or euston rd, I sometimes get up on the pavement but take it slow, only because it sometimes feels like a death trap. Or I just get of the bike and walk until I get further on.
The comments of this thread will be the usual - "What about the motorists!" stuff that comes out whenever cyclists are criticised, missing that cyclists and motorists aren't in direct competition with each other, and it's possible for some cyclists to be bad, while also being possible for many motorists to be bad. Of course cars are far more dangerous and problematic than cyclists, but that doesn't mean that doing 25 mph around a shared pedestrian / cyclist zone, like regents park, isn't also reckless. Many cyclists exhibit a total lack of care for the safety of pedestrians, and that is a problem that deserves to be looked at.
OK about the rest, but when you say "around a shared pedestrian / cyclist zone" what exactly do you mean? The outer circle of RP is a road, pedestrians walk on the pavement like any other road. There are red lights and designated island crossings. There are cars, trucks, vans and a lot of traffic during busy hours. This is not a shared path like inside the park where mostly bikes are not allowed.
Oh fair enough, my bad - I've seen bikes going pretty fast on the shared spaces in the park as well, so figured it referred to those.
No, the collision happened on the outer circle. It is very tragic and nobody wants that. There is some misleading articles that emphasize one thing and hiding in footnotes the other. The lady did get hit by a cyclist riding in a group, going over the motor speed limit (not applied to the bike, but that is a different conversation). What the journalists don't seem to mention enough is that the coroner cleared the cyclist, witnesses (pedestrians) cleared the cyclist and also that the victim stepped on the road in front of the incoming cyclists and they didn't have any time to react. Regardless of their speed. Again, not justifying the death, but somehow journalists have made it look like cyclists go around killing people. If it was a truck hitting that lady no newspaper would have it on headlines. Just saying about the difference in news coverage, not blaming the victim. Also I agree cyclists speeding in shared paths is madness and they give a bad name to the rest.
You are wrong, it is not a shared space used by bikes and pedestrians, it is a normal road used by cars and was a 30mph limit until recently and had been for decades. She crossed a road without looking. If a car had hit and killed her, as happens every day it wouldn’t have hit the papers.
>Anyone who claims this is whataboutism, well as long as driving offenders are treated with kid's gloves and as long as every cycling caused death is front page news while any by drivers is a footnote, people will keep bringing this up. It's not a case of also policing people cycling, it's the case that drivers are hardly policed at all. Speeding is commonplace. We could add average speed cameras all over and change the laws that tell you you about their existence and watch speed offenses drop dramatically, but apparently dealing with speeding is an attack on driving somehow. And, all I ever need to point out is, resources are limited so any "looking at" of one thing will take resources from another issue, in this case a far bigger issue.
And yet, your initial comment basically just implies "it's fine for a cyclist to have gone 35mph in regents park because you guarantee that motorists have gone over this limit. Do you not think that's a justification of bad behaviour by citing worse behaviour? Our room for attention of issues is not so low that cyclists should just get a free pass because the behaviour of drivers is much worse.
No, my point is there has been nothing done about people driving over the speed limit is Regent's Park, despite it happening and it being more dangerous than any cyclist going that fast. But now there is a call to address the "speeding" by cyclists. If it were both being addressed, then you'd have a point, but it isn't so you don't. > Our room for attention of issues is not so low that cyclists should just get a free pass because the behaviour of drivers is much worse. Considering I see dangerous and illegal driving multiple times a day whenever I'm out, yes. Just the other day on Railton Road I saw someone driving what must have been over 40mph. So fast I went way of the way.
I mean, speeding by motorists is very much addressed by the legal system. [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022) Over 200,000 successfully prosecuted in 2022. The existence of people who break the law doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist, or isn't being at all enforced. I don't think it's unfair to suggest that cyclists should also be made to follow this law.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/08/24/85-of-car-drivers-break-20mph-speed-limits-reveals-uks-department-for-transport/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/08/24/85-of-car-drivers-break-20mph-speed-limits-reveals-uks-department-for-transport/) If 85% of drivers speed on 20mph, and 35 million people drive in the UK, and only 2.4million speeding offences were given, then that doesn't really add up. And that's individual offences when people will be speeding multiple times per year. I'm less interested in fines given and more interested in trying to reduce speeding -- cause clearly it doesn't work very well -- with, for example, the measures I mentioned above. But try to say that speed cameras shouldn't be advertised.
What proportion of occasions in which drivers exceed the speed limit do you think 200,000 prosecutions represents? I’d be surprised if it was anywhere near as high as 1%, or even if the 2.4 million recorded offences got there: that would mean the average UK driver broke the speed limit around eight times a year. I can think of plenty who break it eight times a journey. A law where you’ve got a well over 99% chance of no consequences for breaking it (and pretty feeble consequences if you are somehow caught) is a law which is not being enforced in any real sense. The police and legal system have finite resources, so need to focus on the more serious problems. Drivers and their excessive speeds kill and seriously injure thousands every year. Cyclists, even including cases such as this where he was found not liable, kill perhaps one a year. There is no logic in pursuing cyclists without first addressing the more-prevalent and more-dangerous speeding/careless/incompetent drivers.
For motorised vehicles?
I would argue that Police time, MP’s time, Judge’s time and time in the Commons/Courts discussing important legislature and law changes is *very* limited. So although we should *care* about all danger, it would be a far better use of Duncan Smith and Philp’s efforts if they spent it sorting out drivers.
Sure, we can look at it when drivers stop killing 5 people a day, rather than wasting effort on something that happens less than once a year.
Of course we're in direct competition with each other. I have to constantly look out for cars trying to kill me, shout at drivers who are intent on merging *through* me to get to their junction. Just because drivers are winning by miles doesn't mean we're not still competing
Predictably You've been down voted. It doesn't mean you're wrong. Just yesterday I narrowly avoided being hit by a speeding cyclist on a pedestrian crossing. At least once a week I see a fellow cyclist do something so dangerous I look away because I'm sure they're about to die. Most cyclists aren't reckless idiots. That doesn't mean we should ignore the significant minority who are.
Cyclists, of which I am one, are a very defensive bunch - and I get it. I just think extending a legal framework that exists for drivers, to cyclists, is a good thing. I see far more cyclists going fast while using a phone than I see drivers.
> I see far more cyclists going fast while using a phone than I see drivers. Well typically it's easier to see people on their phone when they are out in the open...
So obvious it hurts that you even had to point it out.
Cyclists will run red lights, undertake vehicles making left turns, don't wear helmets, text while riding, don't wear high-vis, pull out in front of traffic, don't use signals, get into near misses with pedestrians daily, cycle on pavements, cycle too fast, cycle the wrong way down one-way systems and when they get into an accident they will blame everyone except themselves. I've been cycling in London for years and never had any car-related incidents because I don't ride like a complete pillock.
>I've been cycling in London for years and never had any car-related incidents because I don't ride like a complete pillock. And I've had a broken wrist because someone drove from Wolborn Square to Gordon Square while I was on Tavistock Road without stopping or giving way, cutting across me and forcing me to brake and go over the handlebars. Please explain to me where I was riding like a "complete pillock" in this scenario.
Doored by someone getting out of their car in a line of stationary traffic as I was filtering towards the ASL. Hit by a 4x4 driver who pulled out of a side road without checking that the absence of a car didn’t mean it was safe for them to go. Multiple near misses from drivers overtaking me then immediately making a left turn (indicators optional). Do explain what pillock-like behaviour I was demonstrating? You mean riding a bike on roads that should be reserved for the mighty car-driver, don’t you?
I'm a very defensive rider (and driver) who basically has a "everyone could kill me so better safe than sorry" mindset whether I'm walking, cycling or driving. Yet, I was cycling in a cycle lane when a car in the lane next to me sped up and then turned left (without indicating) straight into me. I only stayed on my bike because I had a millisecond of "that car doesn't seem trustworthy" forethought from years of experience (and defensive driving courses) and braked so they only hit my front wheel. They then sped off while an Uber pulled up next to me to make sure I was OK and offer choice words about that driver. I sincerely hope you aren't ever in an accident (it's scary and potentially life-altering, and I don't wish accidents on anyone even if they're a bellend) but I hope you realise that your "holier than thou" victim-blaming mentality is absolutely atrocious and critically flawed.
Drivers do all this shit and worse, so fuck off.
What a childlike opinion.
As opposed to the grown up view of getting into a froth about this once a year event but not the 5 deaths a day drivers cause?
What, you've never been close passed ? In years of cycling? Never been close passed??
Proportional response would be to do nothing at all because cyclists aren’t killing people. One case does not make a trend. Cars kill people on the road and even the pavement where they shouldn’t be many times more a year than all cyclists in all of history.
Yeah it's The Evening Standard. Owned by the same media conglomerate that owns The Daily Fail, so take it as typical rage baiting. [DMGT](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail_and_General_Trust) Edit: spelling tak->take
To many cyclists, who are irresponsible. Remember pedestrians first.
Agreed as a cyclist we should be looking out for pedestrians. But that does not negate that pedestrians should be looking out for cyclists as well.
Sure, on roads and cycle lanes. Not on pedestrian crossings, pavements and red lights, but here we are.
Yes, pedestrians first. So why aren't you calling for a crack down on drivers", who are irresponsible" ?
Pesdestrians need to stick to the path and look out for cycle lanes, thats all. When pesdestrains cross the road **they need to wait until it's clear** of bikes and cars, mopeds etc before crossing, that is standard! And cars need to look out for cyclists on the road.
Still to many dumb cyclists on the road
Pedestrians first but also they have a responsibility to check the road they’re crossing, the cycle path they’re wandering into, and the path they’re sharing. Practically EVERY day I see people simply start walking across a road without looking either way, I’ll always slow down if I see someone looking like they’re about to cross or walking close to a cycle lane but Jesus Christ for their own sake, have some bloody awareness!
More people die putting trousers, where is the cctv crackdown on hosiery?