What recourse is there against cyclist who disregard the highway code?

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > So yes I am saying the 'average cyclist' will

> rarely get to 30mph let alone above it, fact!!

>

> Nice bait-and-switch. My 'never, ever' has become

> 'rarely'. So the answer you are giving to my

> question "Are you saying your average cyclist

> never, ever gets to 30mph?" is actually, "No, the

> average cyclist can get to 30mph and above".

I'm with Pearson, your average cyclist certainly would't reach anything like 30mph on a commute. The fastest winning time at the Beijing Olympics men's road race time trials was only 28.61mph!

[henryb]

northlondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What's wrong with pushing the bike on the pavement

> rather than riding it ?

Because there is no evidence that cycling slowly and sensibly on the pavement puts pedestrians at any more risk of harm.

In Japan cyclists have been able to use pavements since 1978 and it has been very successful - pedestrian safety has not been compromised and it has encouraged many more people onto bikes especially amongst women and the elderly.

There are many shared spaces in London which again have few problems.

Obviously behaving in a reckless or dangerous fashion in a public space should not be allowed and should be stopped but that applies to all modes of transport. The restrictions, controls and penalties should be appropriate to the actual risk of harm to others caused.

[Loz]

The fastest winning time at the Beijing Olympics men's road race time trials was only 28.61mph!

That was their average speed. Averages mean little. What was their top speed?

Anyway, the point is, a cyclist moves fast enough to seriously injure and/or kill pedestrians. They should have the same onus of the law upon them as any other vehicle on the road.

That means that for cyclists like nashoi, you can't pick and choose what laws you want to obey and expect the law to turn a blind eye. (And I accept that there are many other cyclist like applespider that don't so this sot of thing.)

[Emerson Crane]

Riding bikes on the pavement is a no no, end of. Unless of course you are a toddler with stabilisers on your bike under supervision.

[DaveR]

"Anyway, the point is, a cyclist moves fast enough to seriously injure and/or kill pedestrians. They should have the same onus of the law upon them as any other vehicle on the road."

This is just b*llocks. It is already against the law to cycle on the pavement and to jump red lights, and nobody is seriously arguing that it shouldn't be. The issue is enforcement, and tbh that applies equally to cars - how many times does a car running a red light result in a ticket?

As to compulsory registration etc., quite apart from the practical problems e.g. where do you put the reg plate, it would be both disproportionate and unlikely to result in any significant improvement. Everybody has an anecdote about a terrible bit of cycling behaviour, but the stats don't lie - the risk to pedestrians and other users presented by cyclists is very small, and infinitesmal compared to the risk to both pedestrians and cyclists from cars, trucks etc.

I have complete sympathy for anybody who is put in fear by idiots riding on the pavement when there is no need, and too fast, or who is using a crossing and finds a cyclist bearing down on them, unwilling to stop. But it doesn't help anybody to make sweeping generalisations about 'over-adrenalized cyclists' and then argue that cyclists are 'the same' as any other road user. They're not, just like your car isn't the same as a bus. Unless you drive a bus, and are allowed to take it home at the weekends (which would be kind of cool, but you'd have to have a massive garage).

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The fastest winning time at the Beijing Olympics

> men's road race time trials was only 28.61mph!

>

> That was their average speed. Averages mean

> little. What was their top speed?

Are you serious? Beijing Olympians versus your average commuter means little lol. Ok, here's one for you - in 2000 Eric Barone reached 222km/h (138 mph) downhill...maybe he was going that fast!? Or maybe as reports suggested at the time, he was travelling much slower. If you think that that your average commuter even reaches a TOP speed of 30mph you are out of your tree:

Average cycling speed - indications

Bearing in mind all the provisos above, you still want to know 'average cycling speed? Hear are some general guidelines, all for solo riders on general 'mixed' terrain (ie rolling hills about 30% of the time, and pretty flat the rest of the time):

* Beginner, short distance (say 10-15 miles): average speed 12 mph. Most cyclists can achieve 10-12 mph average very quickly with limited training

* More experienced, short-medium distance (say 20-30 miles): average speed 15-16 mph

* Reasonable experience, medium (say 40 miles): average speed 16-19 mph

* Quite competent club rider, some regular training likely, medium-long distances (say 50-60 miles): 20-24 mph

From here: http://www.road-bike.co.uk/articles/average-speed.php

[JohnL]

No - that just means they have to go through the court system

A person with criminal convictions cannot receive a caution for instance.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Found the following Home office guidance....

>

> The primary legislation which makes cycling on a

> footway an offence is section 72 of the 1835

> Highways Act, this provides that a person shall be

> guilty of an offence if he "shall wilfully ride

> upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any

> road made or set apart for the use or

> accommodation of foot-passengers or shall wilfully

> lead or drive any carriage of any description upon

> any such footpath or causeway."

>

> Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888

> extended the definition of "carriage" to include

> "bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other

> similar machines."

>

> On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into

> force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served

> on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway.

>

> However the Home Office issued guidance on how the

> new legislation should be applied, indicating that

> they should only be used where a cyclist is riding

> in a manner that may endanger others. At the time

> Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter

> stating that:

>

> "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not

> aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel

> obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic

> and who show consideration to other pavement users

> when doing so. Chief police officers, who are

> responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many

> cyclists, particularly children and young people,

> are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and

> careful use of police discretion is required."

>

> "Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty

> needs to be used with a considerable degree of

> discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under

> the age of 16."

>

> (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The

> Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

>

>

> So in other words no-one under 16 can be fined or

> prosecuted for riding on a pavement....

[binary_star]

Look, if you really want to get cyclists ticketed locally for jumping lights or pavement cycling then complain to the Police about it. In the Square Mile they're always running sting operations to catch out rogue cyclists because those are the crimes that are flagged up the most.

[Emerson Crane]

binary_star Wrote:

> Are you serious? Beijing Olympians versus your

> average commuter means little lol. Ok, here's one

> for you - in 2000 Eric Barone reached 222km/h

> (138 mph) downhill...maybe he was going that

> fast!? Or maybe as reports suggested at the time,

> he was travelling much slower. If you think that

> that your average commuter even reaches a TOP

> speed of 30mph you are out of your tree:

>

> Average cycling speed - indications

>

> Bearing in mind all the provisos above, you still

> want to know 'average cycling speed? Hear are some

> general guidelines, all for solo riders on general

> 'mixed' terrain (ie rolling hills about 30% of the

> time, and pretty flat the rest of the time):

>

> * Beginner, short distance (say 10-15 miles):

> average speed 12 mph. Most cyclists can achieve

> 10-12 mph average very quickly with limited

> training

> * More experienced, short-medium distance (say

> 20-30 miles): average speed 15-16 mph

> * Reasonable experience, medium (say 40

> miles): average speed 16-19 mph

> * Quite competent club rider, some regular

> training likely, medium-long distances (say 50-60

> miles): 20-24 mph

>

> From here:

> http://www.road-bike.co.uk/articles/average-speed.

> php

Cycle where you bloody like as long as its not on the pavement!!

[JohnL]

problem is the pedestrians will be hidden by the stationary cars in most cases

nashoi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No northlondoner I didn't say they should ignore

> red lights, if there's traffic crossing,

> pedestrian or motorised, they should stop. That's

> what Give Way means.

[binary_star]

Emerson Crane Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cycle where you bloody like as long as its not on

> the pavement!!

I do, thanks :D

[Loz]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Anyway, the point is, a cyclist moves fast enough

> to seriously injure and/or kill pedestrians. They

> should have the same onus of the law upon them as

> any other vehicle on the road."

>

> This is just b*llocks. It is already against the

> law to cycle on the pavement and to jump red

> lights, and nobody is seriously arguing that it

> shouldn't be.

Erm... I think nashoi was pretty much trying to say exactly that: he/she considers red lights are optional for cyclists.

And the point of the 10 Minute Bill is put the same level of severity and punishment for the "charge of causing death by dangerous cycling" as it is for "charge of causing death by dangerous driving".

So, no, it is not b*llocks.

[binary_star]

northlondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

What recourse is there against cyclist who disregard the highway code?

Nothing unless the rule states it MUST be adhered to - such rules always reference the piece of legislation that makes them law. All the other rules are bascically guidelines, so rules for cyclists that must be obeyed by LAW:

northlondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

- randomly swerving in and of traffic: It's perfectly legal to filter, however, Rule 68: You MUST NOT ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner [Law RTA 1988 sects 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 as amended by RTA 1991]

- charging through red lights: Rule 69: You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals. [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)] and rule 71: You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)]

- hopping onto the pavement: Rule 64: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. [Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129]

- positioning themselves along vehicles' blind side: Guideline only: rule 72 Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

So complain to the Police...I regularly see people in the City get ticketed for cycling on the pavement and jumping reds, and I have friends who have received on the spot fines of ?30 for doing so.

[DaveR]

No Loz, what I was saying is the argument you advanced i.e. because of x, then y, is b*llocks. And it is, for the reasons given. Nashoi said;

"I've always thought the best option for cyclists is to treat red lights the same way the emergency services do ie as giveway rather than stop signals"

which may or not may mean that he thinks red-light jumping should be legitimised for cyclists, but doesn't affect the b*llocks-ness of your proposition.

And introducing a new offence for the purpose of catching maybe one person every three to five years is a waste of time and effort.

[Applespider]

While cycling to work this morning, I did spot, on Stockwell Road, a very lycra-clad cyclist standing having a 'chat' with a police motorcyclist. Looked like he'd been pulled over for something... and presumably after being chased down on the motorbike

[Pearson]

^Cyclist could also have been reporting a bad driver

*as wild a guess as yours*

[DJKillaQueen]

Yeah I've seen the sting operations in action too....just as I've seen ANPR road blocks to catch illegal drivers. They can never be everywhere and catch everyone.

Here's something to consider. The other night I came home around midnight and had no lights...so I cycled on the pavement. There was absolutely no-one on the pavement so I considered it safer for me to do that at a slow speed, rather than ride on the road with no lights (also illegal). Walking that far along dark streets as a woman alone was never going to be a sensible option.

To me the home offfice guidance is clear. Fine a cyclist if they are endagering others, use common sense if they are not.

[Loz]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No Loz, what I was saying is the argument you

> advanced i.e. because of x, then y, is b*llocks.

> And it is, for the reasons given. Nashoi said;

>

> "I've always thought the best option for cyclists

> is to treat red lights the same way the emergency

> services do ie as giveway rather than stop

> signals"

>

> which may or not may mean that he thinks red-light

> jumping should be legitimised for cyclists, but

> doesn't affect the b*llocks-ness of your

> proposition.

Nah, sorry DaveR you are talking in code here. What was the "argument I advanced i.e. because of x, then y"?

And trying to make light of what nashoi said is just covering your ears and saying 'la la la'. It's pretty obvious that what nashoi said that the cyclists should treat red lights as give way signs - i.e. not in line with the law. You really can't wriggle out of that one, no matter how you try.

> And introducing a new offence for the purpose of catching maybe one person every three to five years

> is a waste of time and effort.

Bad guess. 29 pedestrians were killed in Britain in accidents involving cyclists between 1998 and 2007. I suspect few of those were the fault of the pedestrian, but I suspect you will try to argue otherwise. And the worst case penalty at the moment for killing someone? A fine of ?2500. I suspect you think that is too high.

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bad guess. 29 pedestrians were killed in Britain

> in accidents involving cyclists between 1998 and

> 2007.

That's only 7600 pedestrians less than were killed by mototor vehicles during the same period.

[DaveR]

"Anyway, the point is, [because] a cyclist moves fast enough to seriously injure and/or kill pedestrians. [then] They should have the same onus of the law upon them as any other vehicle on the road."

= b*llocks

It's a bit like

because a cricket ball, if thrown hard enough, could hit and kill someone, it should be licensed as if it were a firearm

You think I'm talking rubbish - try looking up the stats for fatalities caused by cricket balls.

It's comparative risk, innit.

[henryb]

> 29 pedestrians were killed in Britain in accidents involving cyclists between 1998 and 2007.

And how many of those were on the pavement or because of dangerous cycling?

[Emerson Crane]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Anyway, the point is, a cyclist moves fast

> enough to seriously injure and/or kill

> pedestrians. They should have the same onus of

> the law upon them as any other vehicle on the

> road."

>

> = b*llocks

>

>

> It's a bit like

>

> because a cricket ball, if thrown hard enough,

> could hit and kill someone, it should be licensed

> as if it were a firearm

>

> You think I'm talking rubbish - try looking up the

> stats for fatalities caused by cricket balls.

>

> It's comparative risk, innit.

Bollocks is exactly what you're talking. A pedestrian walks on a pavement because thats where we are supposed to be, cycles aren't. How difficult is that. FFS

[DaveR]

Emerson, if you read the thread you will see that I have consistently agreed with you. The point I am making is that the fact that a cyclists who rides on the pavement might injure/kill someone does not support the assertion that they should be treated like 'any other vehicle'. Which is wot Loz said.

[Applespider]

Pearson Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ^Cyclist could also have been reporting a bad

> driver

>

> *as wild a guess as yours*

Given the body language, tone and motorbike positioning, I'd give my interpretation better odds of being true - but we'll never know either way.

[malumbu]

Stats are great:

29 pedestrians were killed in Britain

> in accidents involving cyclists between 1998 and

> 2007.

That's only 7600 pedestrians less than were killed by mototor vehicles during the same period

The breakdown does not say whether the pedestrians were on the pavement or on the road.

More pedestrians are killed by cars mounting the road than by cyclists.

Therefore pedestrians are only killed by cyclists when they are on the road, trying to avoid cars from mounting the pavement.

As a cyclist who only rarely uses pavements, and not at any great speed, I've never hit a pedestrain. I've come so close on the road so many times, as so many people on their phone, texting or on iPods don't bother looking.

At least I would be cycling on the road if my bike hadn't been nicked. I suggest you look at my thread on the bike thief close to this one, I would find further comments helpful.