Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Alan de Enfield

Maybe Cyclists Should Have Compulsory Insurance

Featured Posts

On 31/08/2019 at 15:53, Flyboy said:

Not so, the road (country lane) was only wide enough to safely overtake a single line leaving a reasonable clearance between car/trailer and cyclist. It not about a 2 and a half minute delay, it's just ban manners.

Sounds like it's about road rage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wake up C&RT !!

 

From Narrowboat world.

 

IF  DEVON'S council can see the problem and do something proactive about it why the hell can't CART? Asks Brian Jarrett.

CyclistsDismountThis is the sign erected on the towpaths by Devon County Council, and why indeed can't Canal & River Trust—of signs galoredo the same?

Give way to pedestrians

After all. the law, in the shape of Section 9—11 of the 1972 Road Traffic Act lays down the regulations, not only of cyclists having to give way at all times to pedestrians but cycling recklessly, dangerously or under the influence of drink.

Added to this is the matter of the rules concerning the widths of  towpaths used as cycleways. that are nowhere near the widths demanded.

Serious injury or death

It really is about time that CaRT pulled its head out of the sand and made sure the ever increasing 'upgrades' to our towpaths into cycle tracks confirmed to the rules, as these ever increasing number of accidents caused by the narrow tracks, must surely eventually result in a very serious injury or death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Wake up C&RT !!

 

From Narrowboat world.

 

IF  DEVON'S council can see the problem and do something proactive about it why the hell can't CART? Asks Brian Jarrett.

CyclistsDismountThis is the sign erected on the towpaths by Devon County Council, and why indeed can't Canal & River Trust—of signs galoredo the same?

Give way to pedestrians

After all. the law, in the shape of Section 9—11 of the 1972 Road Traffic Act lays down the regulations, not only of cyclists having to give way at all times to pedestrians but cycling recklessly, dangerously or under the influence of drink.

Added to this is the matter of the rules concerning the widths of  towpaths used as cycleways. that are nowhere near the widths demanded.

Serious injury or death

It really is about time that CaRT pulled its head out of the sand and made sure the ever increasing 'upgrades' to our towpaths into cycle tracks confirmed to the rules, as these ever increasing number of accidents caused by the narrow tracks, must surely eventually result in a very serious injury or death.

The Narrowboat World contributor seems to have got himself in a real muddle with the Law. Why he has dragged up the 1972 Road Traffic Act ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/20/contents/enacted ) I have no idea, it has nothing at all, in any way, to do with cycling, whether drunk or not. The sections he quotes are exclusively related to drink driving of a motor vehicle with regard to samples taken from drunk drivers and their detention. Since you cannot request any specimen from a cyclist it has no relevance to what he is saying.  

 

The Road Traffic Act 1960 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/16/contents/enacted  ) Sections 9 to 11 may have some relevance, however Sections 9 and 10 relate to a cycle on a road which a towpath clearly isn't. Section 11 we may get somewhere with as this is cycling whilst unfit on a road or other public place so at least we have some jurisdiction, however, according to the Act (doesn't seem to have been updated) the maximum fine for this heinous offence is ,"...not exceeding £30..." it will need a Police Constable to enforce it and I cannot see any Constabulary in the Country having any interest in putting Constables on patrol on the towpath on the occasional off-chance of catching a drunk cyclist.

 

This seems classic ,"something must be done about it otherwise someone will get killed" mentality, despite the trivial nature of the threat (just how many towpath deaths have there been?). I could just as easily put forward the proposal that something needs to be done about all these pedestrians crossing the roads "otherwise someone will get killed" except that with pedestrian deaths at about 450 per annum, it is happening, every single day. Where should we put our limited resources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Wake up C&RT !!

 

From Narrowboat world.

 

IF  DEVON'S council can see the problem and do something proactive about it why the hell can't CART? Asks Brian Jarrett.

CyclistsDismountThis is the sign erected on the towpaths by Devon County Council, and why indeed can't Canal & River Trust—of signs galoredo the same?

Give way to pedestrians

After all. the law, in the shape of Section 9—11 of the 1972 Road Traffic Act lays down the regulations, not only of cyclists having to give way at all times to pedestrians but cycling recklessly, dangerously or under the influence of drink.

Added to this is the matter of the rules concerning the widths of  towpaths used as cycleways. that are nowhere near the widths demanded.

Serious injury or death

It really is about time that CaRT pulled its head out of the sand and made sure the ever increasing 'upgrades' to our towpaths into cycle tracks confirmed to the rules, as these ever increasing number of accidents caused by the narrow tracks, must surely eventually result in a very serious injury or death.

Cyclists cant read any sign put up, they are going to fast to even see them let alone read them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

And the cyclist will never be found whilst the car driver can be traced from the registration number - see the difference ?

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

And the cyclist will never be found whilst the car driver can be traced from the registration number - see the difference ?

there's none so blind as those who just don't want to see.

 

 

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the article finishes by saying "No arrests have been made"

 

Personally I think the cyclist will be recognised and deserves a custodial sentence. He obviously believes he's above the law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

And the cyclist will never be found whilst the car driver can be traced from the registration number - see the difference ?

Would that be the article that also says at the end, "No arrests have been made". Why is that if the infallible method of having a registration number will always supply the offender? All we know is the vehicle details and when they find the owner, it will have been a stolen vehicle (or so the owner will allege). Also apparently a passenger ran off, who is going to prove who was driving the vehicle should either of them be located, which is by no means certain since there is always the possibility that the vehicle was indeed stolen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:

Actually the article finishes by saying "No arrests have been made"

 

Personally I think the cyclist will be recognised and deserves a custodial sentence. He obviously believes he's above the law

The article was written hours, not days, after the incident.  It is highly likely things have progressed since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Would that be the article that also says at the end, "No arrests have been made". Why is that if the infallible method of having a registration number will always supply the offender? All we know is the vehicle details and when they find the owner, it will have been a stolen vehicle (or so the owner will allege). Also apparently a passenger ran off, who is going to prove who was driving the vehicle should either of them be located, which is by no means certain since there is always the possibility that the vehicle was indeed stolen.

A 16-year-old boy has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after a teenage cyclist was dragged along the road in a "deliberately targeted" hit-and-run, police have said.

The 17-year-old victim was left with "life-changing injuries" after the crash in east London on Monday evening.

 

The cyclist had been rescued from beneath the vehicle by a group of around a dozen members of the public, who lifted the car to get him out.

The Metropolitan Police confirmed a 16-year-old male suspect is in custody after being arrested on Tuesday.

 

Not exactly a 'motoring v cyclist accident' !

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Would that be the article that also says at the end, "No arrests have been made". Why is that if the infallible method of having a registration number will always supply the offender? All we know is the vehicle details and when they find the owner, it will have been a stolen vehicle (or so the owner will allege). Also apparently a passenger ran off, who is going to prove who was driving the vehicle should either of them be located, which is by no means certain since there is always the possibility that the vehicle was indeed stolen.

are you discrediting the law requiring the use of vehicle licence plates on a car, and thereby justifying the absence of plates on a bike?   

 

if not then, IMHO, your post is irrelevant.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

are you discrediting the law requiring the use of vehicle licence plates on a car, and thereby justifying the absence of plates on a bike?   

 

if not then, IMHO, your post is irrelevant.

 

 

What I am saying, and have been saying from the outset, is that registration plates on a cycle are not the wonderful 'cure all' for bad cycling that some posters on here seem to think they are going to be, do we not have hit and run incidents with motorists? Given that we do not currently have the resources to enforce them anyway it is a pointless exercise along the lines of the 'something must be done' mentality, despite the fact that problem is trivial in actual numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

..................it is a pointless exercise along the lines of the 'something must be done' mentality, despite the fact that problem is trivial in actual numbers.

That seems a very strange point of view.

At what level do the 'numbers' become trivial ?

 

In 2019 to mid May there were 100 fatal stabbings, this is a trivial in actual numbers, being just 0.00016% of the population, but it is anything but trivial to the families of those killed.

 

 

To those injured by a cyclist (there are many examples and pictures available) their injuries may be anything but trivial.

 

From the Times :

The number of pedestrians hit by bicycles has increased to its highest level in at least five years just as the government prepares to crack down on dangerous cyclists.

Figures published by the Department for Transport (DfT) show that 531 people were involved in collisions with cyclists in 2017, up by 15 per cent in 12 months. The accident rate was higher than at any time since at least 2013 when the statistics were first published. More than 120 pedestrians were seriously hurt in collisions with bikes last year and three were killed, the figures show.

The disclosure is made as the government prepares to introduce a “death by dangerous cycling” law. It is being introduced after Kim Briggs, 44, was knocked over and killed…

 
Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

That seems a very strange point of view.

At what level do the 'numbers' become trivial ?

 

In 2019 to mid May there were 100 fatal stabbings, this is a trivial in actual numbers, being just 0.00016% of the population, but it is anything but trivial to the families of those killed.

 

 

To those injured by a cyclist (there are many examples and pictures available) their injuries may be anything but trivial.

 

From the Times :

The number of pedestrians hit by bicycles has increased to its highest level in at least five years just as the government prepares to crack down on dangerous cyclists.

Figures published by the Department for Transport (DfT) show that 531 people were involved in collisions with cyclists in 2017, up by 15 per cent in 12 months. The accident rate was higher than at any time since at least 2013 when the statistics were first published. More than 120 pedestrians were seriously hurt in collisions with bikes last year and three were killed, the figures show.

The disclosure is made as the government prepares to introduce a “death by dangerous cycling” law. It is being introduced after Kim Briggs, 44, was knocked over and killed…

 

It becomes trivial in comparison with the broad picture of 23,000 pedestrian casualties of which circa 450 died from pedestrian/vehicle collisions. So marginally more than 2% of pedestrian/vehicle collisions involve a cyclist and 0.6% involve a death (none of which has ever happened on the towpath). A fair reflection of this would be to advise your local constabulary to spend 2% of their time looking at cyclists, which works out at about 7 minutes a day, (or 98% of their time not bothering to). As I've said many time before, in a world of infinite resources we could have your local officers spending hours wombling up and down towpaths looking for recalcitrant cyclists (and perhaps catching one or two a week if they are really lucky) but we do not have infinite resources and you will be hard pushed to get any level of enthusiasm with your local constabulary for putting any resources at all into dealing with the 'problem'. This means that even if there were registration plates due to be fitted to cycles, no-one would be bothering to carry out any real enforcement because there are not enough resources available to waste their time on such trivialities. This may not be what you are wanting to hear, but that is the reality, and the current recruitment programme isn't going make much of an impact on that since it will only be returning resources to their 2012 level, when there still weren't enough resources to waste time on such trivialities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

That seems a very strange point of view.

At what level do the 'numbers' become trivial ?

 

In 2019 to mid May there were 100 fatal stabbings, this is a trivial in actual numbers, being just 0.00016% of the population, but it is anything but trivial to the families of those killed.

Oh, good point so that's about 100 times as many deaths as due to cyclists - it seems obvious that it should be a legal requirement for those carrying knives should have to wear registration numbers so that they are easily identifiable. That must be a much higher priority than registration numbers for cyclists. 

Quote

To those injured by a cyclist (there are many examples and pictures available) their injuries may be anything but trivial.

Many times more examples of those injured and killed by cars despite the registration plates. Their injuries are also anything but trivial. But maybe you're advocating diverting resources from enforcing driving laws to enforcing cycling laws. If you manage to completely prevent any pedestrian deaths due to cyclists without increasing the number of deaths due to drivers by more than 0.5% then that would have a positive benefit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.