Body & Soul1 min ago
Do We Need Tougher Cycling Laws?
113 Answers
http://
After this case there have been calls for tougher cycling laws but I don't think we need them, we just need to more rigorously enforce the more than adequate ones we have. Eg stop riding on the pavement, through red lights, no lights, no brakes, non road bikes etc. All we have to do is get serious with what we have not introduce more to ignore. This guy was riding an illegal bike for example and should not even have been on the road. Lets start prosecuting cycling offences.
After this case there have been calls for tougher cycling laws but I don't think we need them, we just need to more rigorously enforce the more than adequate ones we have. Eg stop riding on the pavement, through red lights, no lights, no brakes, non road bikes etc. All we have to do is get serious with what we have not introduce more to ignore. This guy was riding an illegal bike for example and should not even have been on the road. Lets start prosecuting cycling offences.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Chill....you gave me lots of advice when I started cycling......I got the high viz...the helmet with the light and the bell that came with the bike would have been fine for pedestrians but I don't cycle in a way that needs to move pedestrians.....
But I've had to add flashing lights and get a siren that would wake the dead for the motorists who just don't seem able to see me......or maybe just don't feel I should be on the road.......:-)
But I've had to add flashing lights and get a siren that would wake the dead for the motorists who just don't seem able to see me......or maybe just don't feel I should be on the road.......:-)
Glad to be of service gnrss, it heartens me that you enjoy cycling so much and I encourage anyone who approaches me about getting on a bike.
As you point out, those serious about their cycling do their utmost to ride to the Highway Code and take all necessary precautions whilst making use of properly fitted lights and warning devices.
Happy cycling! X
As you point out, those serious about their cycling do their utmost to ride to the Highway Code and take all necessary precautions whilst making use of properly fitted lights and warning devices.
Happy cycling! X
Jourdain2
// Mainly that [a lot of cyclists] don't obey the law.
...there is a clearly marked cycling lane on both sides of the road. I was stuck behind 2 cyclists riding abreast... //
You do not know the law. Cycling 2 abreast is perfectly legal. It is not compulsary to use cycle lanes, or stay inside them.
// Mainly that [a lot of cyclists] don't obey the law.
...there is a clearly marked cycling lane on both sides of the road. I was stuck behind 2 cyclists riding abreast... //
You do not know the law. Cycling 2 abreast is perfectly legal. It is not compulsary to use cycle lanes, or stay inside them.
Rule 66 of the Highway Code further advises that cyclists should "ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends, rather than 2 abreast".
Rule 66 also states, on segregated cycle tracks the pedestrian side remains a footway, so if you cycle into the pedestrian side to pass a pedestrian in the cycle lane you technically commit a pavement cycling offence. There's an anomaly because cyclists have to ride on their side, but pedestrians are only advised to use theirs.
Rule 66 also states, on segregated cycle tracks the pedestrian side remains a footway, so if you cycle into the pedestrian side to pass a pedestrian in the cycle lane you technically commit a pavement cycling offence. There's an anomaly because cyclists have to ride on their side, but pedestrians are only advised to use theirs.
this piece reckons he wouldn't have had to face the same charge if he'd killed her with a car
https:/
Interesting and quite plausible.
https:/
Interesting and quite plausible.
I think if a driver got in a car which he knew had no brakes on the front wheels, then ran somebody over and killed them because he failed to stop in time, it's highly likely he would have been charged.
His bike was illegal, much as that car would be illegal, and it's his own fault if he did not realise that.
His bike was illegal, much as that car would be illegal, and it's his own fault if he did not realise that.
Indeed jno, I've been reading links similar to the one you posted.
Yes, this young lad had a bike that was minus a front brake, a requirement he was ignorant of. Bar that he was riding through a green light, slowed his speed and was wearing a helmet. He was heard(in one account I read) to give 2 audible warnings prior to the collision. The lady in question decided not to use the pedestrian crossing some 30 yards away and some reports suggested she was using her phone(which wasn't subsequently established in later reports). Sadly, a collision occurred in which their heads struck each other.
The helmet saved him from injury but ironically caused injury to her, resulting in her falling to the floor, which exacerbated her injuries, tragically.
Regardless of the sentence I've a feeling an appeal will be forthcoming.
Yes, this young lad had a bike that was minus a front brake, a requirement he was ignorant of. Bar that he was riding through a green light, slowed his speed and was wearing a helmet. He was heard(in one account I read) to give 2 audible warnings prior to the collision. The lady in question decided not to use the pedestrian crossing some 30 yards away and some reports suggested she was using her phone(which wasn't subsequently established in later reports). Sadly, a collision occurred in which their heads struck each other.
The helmet saved him from injury but ironically caused injury to her, resulting in her falling to the floor, which exacerbated her injuries, tragically.
Regardless of the sentence I've a feeling an appeal will be forthcoming.
> Indeed jno, I've been reading links similar to the one you posted.
You mean that "he wouldn't have had to face the same charge if he'd killed her with a car"?
> Yes, this young lad had a bike that was minus a front brake, a requirement he was ignorant of.
So you reckon that if the exact same young lad had got in a car which he knew for a fact had no working front brakes, and was ignorant that the car was required to have front brakes, and ran over and killed the exact same woman, that he would not have faced similar if not more severe charges? I think not.
You mean that "he wouldn't have had to face the same charge if he'd killed her with a car"?
> Yes, this young lad had a bike that was minus a front brake, a requirement he was ignorant of.
So you reckon that if the exact same young lad had got in a car which he knew for a fact had no working front brakes, and was ignorant that the car was required to have front brakes, and ran over and killed the exact same woman, that he would not have faced similar if not more severe charges? I think not.
Ellipsis,
Poor analogy. This rider DID have a means of braking(he was on a fixed cycle) he didn't know it was a requirement to have a FRONT brake.
Granted ignoarance is not an excuse but if I was drivinig a car with no means of stopping I'd expect to be involved in a collision of some sort, pretty quickly!
This lad didn't expect to be confronted with a pedestrian whilst riding through a green light at a busy junction, so there's a bit of a difference.
Poor analogy. This rider DID have a means of braking(he was on a fixed cycle) he didn't know it was a requirement to have a FRONT brake.
Granted ignoarance is not an excuse but if I was drivinig a car with no means of stopping I'd expect to be involved in a collision of some sort, pretty quickly!
This lad didn't expect to be confronted with a pedestrian whilst riding through a green light at a busy junction, so there's a bit of a difference.
it sounds as though he partly lost his case because of the high-handed way he defended himself on social media. He made himself look like the stereotypical arrogant cyclist (I'm not a cyclist myself, but most of the ones I see ride with care), and that might well have set the court against him.
Sounding off on the internet when a case is pending is foolish..
Sounding off on the internet when a case is pending is foolish..
> Poor analogy. This rider DID have a means of braking(he was on a fixed cycle) he didn't know it was a requirement to have a FRONT brake.
In my analogy, the car also had a means of braking - the brakes on the rear wheels. In my analogy, the driver didn't know it was a requirement to have a working FRONT brake. Therefore I think it's a good analogy.
The fact is, car or bike, if the brakes had been legal then the impact may not have happened or it may have happened at a lower speed and the woman may therefore still be alive. This is why he needed to be prosecuted, and why he would also have been prosecuted had he been a car driver.
In my analogy, the car also had a means of braking - the brakes on the rear wheels. In my analogy, the driver didn't know it was a requirement to have a working FRONT brake. Therefore I think it's a good analogy.
The fact is, car or bike, if the brakes had been legal then the impact may not have happened or it may have happened at a lower speed and the woman may therefore still be alive. This is why he needed to be prosecuted, and why he would also have been prosecuted had he been a car driver.
Yes, sounding off was a tad foolish. He blamed her, that's his viewpoint but he said she didn't deserve it.
At the time he was unaware of the severity of her injuries, I believe(she died a week later).
yes, best not to brag when involved in a RTC:
http://
https:/
At the time he was unaware of the severity of her injuries, I believe(she died a week later).
yes, best not to brag when involved in a RTC:
http://
https:/
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.