Cycling law review

[cuthound]

4 minutes ago, WotEver said:

One in four people carry a sexually transmitted disease. So if you’re with three of your mates and they’re ok it must be you. 

Reminds me of the Tommy Cooper joke:

 Apparently, 1 in 5 people in the world are Chinese.there are 5 people in my family, so it must be one of them   It’s either my mum or my dad, or my older Brother Colin, or my younger Brother Ho-Cha-Chu?    But I think its Colin.

[LadyG]

On 21/09/2017 at 12:02, Sir Nibble said:

Whatever laws may be introduced, they will,like the rest of the highway code simply not apply to cyclists. Bring in a rule that you must maintain at least one metre of separation when overtaking and the cycle lobby will say. "two surely" tell them it also applies to cyclists overtaking and they will roar with laughter.

You can 't stop idiots, I was overtaken by a very noisy bike yesterday, he did not wait to see if I knew he was behind me, and he was unable to get his bike to overtake me before the oncoming vehicle nearly created a  meat in the sandwich fatal accident, [and I had just had my van washed], his throttle was fully open, and there was nothing I could do, he squeezed in, in front of me, my van goes no faster than 60mph and I guess he was struggling to do 70, I had no indication he was there til he passed my window. Stupid.

I think there is a law preventing cyclists using pavements, but kiddies are safer on  pavement, however madcap teens are often not good cyclists, they are pushing the boundaries.

Edited September 27, 2017 by LadyG

[mross]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

while it's relatively inexpensive insurance now, if it were mandatory it would undoubtedly increase in price very quickly.

If it were mandatory it would get cheaper!  The risk is spread more widely and insurance companies would compete for the business.

[ditchcrawler]

38 minutes ago, mross said:

If it were mandatory it would get cheaper!  The risk is spread more widely and insurance companies would compete for the business.

Is it on any house hold insurance? some 3rd party pet risks are

 

[mrsmelly]

4 hours ago, cuthound said:

Reminds me of the Tommy Cooper joke:

 Apparently, 1 in 5 people in the world are Chinese.there are 5 people in my family, so it must be one of them   It’s either my mum or my dad, or my older Brother Colin, or my younger Brother Ho-Cha-Chu?    But I think its Colin.

This reminds me of the time I was asked if I liked Chinese food and said " Yes " I like most of it and the bloke who asked me then said " Have you ever seen a Chinese funeral? " No says I, come to think of it I havnt..........................................................

[Ssscrudddy]

3 hours ago, mross said:

If it were mandatory it would get cheaper!  The risk is spread more widely and insurance companies would compete for the business.

Yet any time insurance has become mandatory prices have gone through the roof. Just look at American health care

[Richard10002]

6 hours ago, sirweste said:

Not at all. If insurance were introduced it would prevent some people from being able to afford to bike any longer, thus (like bus passes) the government would fund this. 

Is this a bit like, "if lights were compulsory on bikes at night, it would prevent some people from being able to afford to bike any longer" ??  

Well, they are compulsory, and plenty of people dont bother to have them - Perhaps the government should be buying lights for those who "cant afford to buy them".

I agree that insurance isnt compulsory, but it's not a bad idea, and relatively cheap, given that it usually covers the bike itself, as well as third party risks.

 

[Ssscrudddy]

Everyone saying how this insurance is less than £30 pa, I googled & money.co.UK had a list of top 10 cycle insurance. Randomly chose 1, selected the bottom level of cover available, & it came out at £36pm.

The last motorbike I had was less than that fully comp.

[cuthound]

13 minutes ago, Ssscrudddy said:

Everyone saying how this insurance is less than £30 pa, I googled & money.co.UK had a list of top 10 cycle insurance. Randomly chose 1, selected the bottom level of cover available, & it came out at £36pm.

The last motorbike I had was less than that fully comp.

Some here from less than £20 pa.

https://www.money.co.uk/bicycle-insurance.htm?track=843975&creative=204147748924&network=s&placement=&adpos=1t3&gclid=CjwKCAjwu7LOBRBZEiwAQtfbGDs4HxVkIHlPljJTDzKaMSuslaN24tCRpuRPVMzMCx_enIewwVmrmxoCJhgQAvD_BwE

[Murflynn]

52 minutes ago, Ssscrudddy said:

Everyone saying how this insurance is less than £30 pa, I googled & money.co.UK had a list of top 10 cycle insurance. Randomly chose 1, selected the bottom level of cover available, & it came out at £36pm.

you need to get a new google fitted to your surfing device.

 

mind you, you say you only checked one provider.

reminds me of ebay ads where clearly a seller is out of stock and instead of just saying so he prices a paintbrush at £899.99.

[mross]

6 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

reminds me of ebay ads where clearly a seller is out of stock and instead of just saying so he prices a paintbrush at £899.99.

They have to do this as the alternative of relisting is expensive.

[Dave Payne]

23 minutes ago, mross said:

They have to do this as the alternative of relisting is expensive.

Not really, a private seller gets free listings each month, a business has the option of free listings via a monthly payment or a pay as you list, which is pence.

You also have the option to mark an item as out of stock.

[Tony Brooks]

I have not gone through the whole thread because the way it seems many cyclists feel entitled to ignore and demand precedence every other user around them makes me cross but whatever new laws are brought in they will be no use until they are enforced. Every day I see cyclists (and motorists & pedestrians) jumping red lights, cycling through pedestrian areas, pushing past and sometimes knocking walkers on tow paths, riding without lights and so on. In some cases in front of the police and/or CCTV cameras.

Is the same with idiot driving & speeding, anti-social behaviour and so on. In may cases there are the laws already in place to deal with it but they are simply not enforced so we have this gradual drift into more and more anti-social behaviour. The only people any new law will affect are the people who's behaviour does not need controlling, the rest will just ignore it.

 

[Mike Todd]

16 hours ago, mross said:

If it were mandatory it would get cheaper!  The risk is spread more widely and insurance companies would compete for the business.

I didn't say that - sirweste did!

[sirweste]

18 hours ago, Murflynn said:

what a load of nonsense.  

I would also comment that in this litigious age anyone who is at risk of injuring someone else as a result of their actions should carry insurance.  

Some home insurance policies includes such risks.  e.g. https://www.allianz.co.uk/home-insurance/contents-cover-details/liability-insurance.html

why should homeowners be the only people who carry such insurance?

 

I made comment about 3 slightly different topics, bikes are a benefit to all, driving licence, How is trying to get people onto bikes nonsense!? 

I also don't have insurance for me dog should it chew on someone. Nor do I insure myself when walking down a flight of steps should I trip and knock others down. Just as for the bike, if I have to get insurance I will, but at the moment I do not have insurance as I don't feel the risk justifies the requirement at the moment.

 

 

[Midnight]

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

I have not gone through the whole thread because the way it seems many cyclists feel entitled to ignore and demand precedence every other user around them makes me cross but whatever new laws are brought in they will be no use until they are enforced. Every day I see cyclists (and motorists & pedestrians) jumping red lights, cycling through pedestrian areas, pushing past and sometimes knocking walkers on tow paths, riding without lights and so on. In some cases in front of the police and/or CCTV cameras.

Is the same with idiot driving & speeding, anti-social behaviour and so on. In may cases there are the laws already in place to deal with it but they are simply not enforced so we have this gradual drift into more and more anti-social behaviour. The only people any new law will affect are the people who's behaviour does not need controlling, the rest will just ignore it.

 

Totally agree Tony have a greenie. Never-the-less the review will open up the debate. Cycling on towpaths by idiots - and there's plenty of them - needs to be included. Not sure what can will be done by the authorities, but some of the 'preventative' measures taken by some on here - me included - have the desired effect.

[Mrs Trackman]

On 21/09/2017 at 13:11, Murflynn said:

simples - in the event of a collision or similar incident involving a pedestrian and a cyclist, the faster person/vehicle (i.e. the cyclist) is to blame by default and may be liable to prosecution for careless or dangerous riding (mirroring what currently happens between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian), unless he can provide evidence that the pedestrian deliberately caused a collision. 

in order to monitor/police such laws, all bikes must carry a licence plate visible from behind, and the registered owner of the bike is responsible for the security of the bike, appropriate insurance, and only allowing others to ride the bike with his permission.

Simply not true. The motorist who killed a cyclist in regent Street London was let off as the poor dear, 'simply didn't see the bike'. So, not only is the faster vehicle not given the blame but apparently it's ok to drive without being able to see. 

[Richard10002]

I often "don't see a bike", not because I can't see, but because they aren't visible to me in the circumstances, which can be for a variety of reasons.

Usually it is because they have no lights at night, or they are coming from behind, (overtaking), or entering the road I am on from a side road. Not necessarily an excuse, but there are blind spots all around a car so it's always possible for a cyclist to be in a blind spot each time you look in their direction, particularly when drivers are looking ahead for the majority of the time.

If I were a cyclist I would do everything possible to ensure my visibility. Bright lights, Bright reflective clothing, loud bell or even an electric horn? I'm not saying this is a requirement, merely that, given the risks, it would be crazy not to take advantage of stuff that makes you more visible.

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

Totally agree Tony have a greenie. Never-the-less the review will open up the debate. Cycling on towpaths by idiots - and there's plenty of them - needs to be included. Not sure what can will be done by the authorities, but some of the 'preventative' measures taken by some on here - me included - have the desired effect.

Laws only work when there is some means of spotting infringements and enforcing the particular law or, as in the majority of cases, the population abiding by the law by default.

I often see people doing things which suggest that they don't believe that the law applies to them, and that there is no chance of them being caught and/or, even if they are caught, the penalty will be from nil to minimal.

It only takes a small minority with this type of behaviour to make life difficult and unpleasant, or even dangerous, for others.

[Tony Brooks]

7 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Laws only work when there is some means of spotting infringements and enforcing the particular law or, as in the majority of cases, the population abiding by the law by default.

I often see people doing things which suggest that they don't believe that the law applies to them, and that there is no chance of them being caught and/or, even if they are caught, the penalty will be from nil to minimal.

It only takes a small minority with this type of behaviour to make life difficult and unpleasant, or even dangerous, for others.

And that small minority shows other that they can ignore laws and social norms with impunity so a few others copy them and so on and so on until we end up with police no go areas and police policies that decide low level law breaking can be ignored.

[mross]

52 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I often "don't see a bike", not because I can't see, but because they aren't visible to me in the circumstances, which can be for a variety of reasons.

Usually it is because they have no lights at night, or they are coming from behind, (overtaking), or entering the road I am on from a side road. Not necessarily an excuse, but there are blind spots all around a car so it's always possible for a cyclist to be in a blind spot each time you look in their direction, particularly when drivers are looking ahead for the majority of the time.

If I were a cyclist I would do everything possible to ensure my visibility. Bright lights, Bright reflective clothing, loud bell or even an electric horn? I'm not saying this is a requirement, merely that, given the risks, it would be crazy not to take advantage of stuff that makes you more visible.

1

If you fail to see a cyclist joining from a side road you shouldn't be driving!  It's your responsibility to look for and spot other road users.  The A-pillars are a POTENTIAL blind spot on many cars, which is why you must move your head around when there might be a cyclist, motorcyclist or horse near a junction.

Are you a Volvo driver 

Edited September 28, 2017 by mross

[Murflynn]

3 hours ago, sirweste said:

 

I also don't have insurance for me dog should it chew on someone.

Just as for the bike, if I have to get insurance I will, but at the moment I do not have insurance as I don't feel the risk justifies the requirement at the moment.

 

 

so how do you expect an injured party to obtain compensation, possibly for life-changing injuries caused by your dog or by your cycling, for an amount which you could not possible afford to pay without insurance?

are you not making yourself out as an irresponsible eejit?

[Sir Nibble]

1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

so how do you expect an injured party to obtain compensation, possibly for life-changing injuries caused by your dog or by your cycling, for an amount which you could not possible afford to pay without insurance?

are you not making yourself out as an irresponsible eejit?

Yes.

[sirweste]

1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

so how do you expect an injured party to obtain compensation, possibly for life-changing injuries caused by your dog or by your cycling, for an amount which you could not possible afford to pay without insurance?

are you not making yourself out as an irresponsible eejit?

I agree, I am, though I just don't see it as risky enough to warrant insurance. As I age I'm sure my perception of risk will change, it has so far.

I don't know how things use to be but I don't understand the new age desire for compensation payouts

Do all you guys/galls have 3rd party pet insurance then?

[Richard10002]

2 hours ago, mross said:

If you fail to see a cyclist joining from a side road you shouldn't be driving!  It's your responsibility to look for and spot other road users.  The A-pillars are a POTENTIAL blind spot on many cars, which is why you must move your head around when there might be a cyclist, motorcyclist or horse near a junction.

Are you a Volvo driver 

I hesitated before typing the bit about the side road. In fact, thinking about it, I can't actually recall not seeing a cyclist entering from a side road ahead of me, but I do recall them entering from a side road to my left when in slow moving traffic, and suddenly appearing by my front wing

Anywhere from the A pillar back can be a blind spot and, whilst I agree that it is important to be always looking, nobody can be looking everywhere all the time, thus nobody can guarantee to see everything from the A pillar back, all of the time. Particularly a cyclist at speed, overtaking or undertaking, in slow moving traffic, which is what many of them do, leaving a gap of inches, and definitely not a cyclist at night with no lights.

I really trying to make the point that, whatever the requirements of drivers, there can be legitimate reasons for not seeing a cyclist, and they should make themselves highly visible and I will add that they should ride defensively, rather than arrogantly and aggressively.

In addition, there will be times when a driver doesn't see a cyclist when they probably should. If there is an accident, the cyclist will come out of it the worst.

8 minutes ago, sirweste said:

I agree, I am, though I just don't see it as risky enough to warrant insurance. As I age I'm sure my perception of risk will change, it has so far.

I don't know how things use to be but I don't understand the new age desire for compensation payouts

Do all you guys/galls have 3rd party pet insurance then?

I think 3rd Party is included with pet health insurance so, if you have health insurance, you almost certainly have 3rd Party cover.

imdont know what 3rd Party costs on its own as we always have full cover of some kind.