Cycling laws to be overhauled.

[Edwardoka]

It is compulsory to ride on the cyclepath in France if there is one.

Is it??? I had no idea and I spent a month riding all day every day there. No-one batted an eyelid. The only non-obvious road law I was aware of was priorité à droite and it came up maybe twice.

Then again you are legally obliged to wear a helmet in Spain unless you're cycling uphill or in hot weather. (What constitutes hot weather or how you get the helmet to the top of the hill is never mentioned). Again, no-one batted an eyelid at my unhelmeted noggin en España.
Cycling laws are idiotic at best, moreso when inconsistently applied.

 

[jarlrmai]

isn't it kind of always hot in Spain, sounds like a classic not a rule until someone decides it is one day.

That's kind of my issue, they'll introduce the law then randomly impose it on some poor dude who rubs an officer the wrong way one day

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

Ok bring in all the licensing, testing and insurance. But bear in mind we're going to be on a level playing field after that. No more whining about 'slow' and 'in the way' and 'get on the cycle path' or 'you should be...' and all that other bullshit. We'll have all the so called 'rights' that the tin box brigade squeal about and think we don't have.

That's why it will never happen. The BDA and RHA would go nuts!

 

[mjr]

Ok bring in all the licensing, testing and insurance. But bear in mind we're going to be on a level playing field after that. No more whining about 'slow' and 'in the way' and 'get on the cycle path' or 'you should be...' and all that other bullshit. We'll have all the so called 'rights' that the tin box brigade squeal about and think we don't have.

That's why it will never happen. The BDA and RHA would go nuts!

Do you not realise that drivers still rant about L plate limited powered two wheelers?

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

As some wag has pointed out on twitter, you're statistically more likely to be novichoked to death by a Russian agent than killed by a cyclist*, and as the recent case showed the laws are perfectly capable of prosecuting a reckless cyclist who does kill, even if they are "old" laws. So what? Lots of laws are old.

So what possible justification can there be for devoting parliamentary change to this change in the law?

The only possible reason for this is to ride the wave of populist anti cyclist sentiment. And sure as night follows day it will be followed by mandatory insurance, mandatory helmets, mandatory use of non-existent segregated facilities and banning from the public roads. All of those things may be a while coming, but that's where we are headed. And before you reach for your RTA statistics and other evidence, remember evidence has no place in policy making. It's sentiment that counts. And the sentiment is: get rid of cyclists, they are a menace.

* Which may not actually be true, but it's not far off.

I think they're trying to divert the hatred people have for the govt for Brexit etc onto someone else. It's an image thing.

 

[srw]

And the sentiment is: get rid of cyclists, they are a menac

If only we had two potential future Prime Ministers who are well known to be cyclists and who could take time out to speak up for sensible lawmaking.

 

[Edwardoka]

So what possible justification can there be for devoting parliamentary change to this change in the law?

It's a kneejerk reaction to an emotive, high-profile case, by reactionaries who see a thing they don't like and want to clamp down on.

The news I watched earlier had lots of lingering cross-fade photos of Kim Briggs to make you empathise*. Contrast with the vast volume of normalised road deaths on a daily basis where it's a driverless car and the victim is at least partly to blame. ("in collision with")

The media and politicians hitching their wagons to this are massive hypocrites. They routinely ignore cases where drivers kill people on the pavement and instead focus on a single case from 2 years ago where someone stepped out into the road in front of a cyclist who wasn't able to slow down in time because his bike was unroadworthy and he was rightly imprisoned for what I would consider to be a open-and-shut case of involuntary manslaughter.

Ultimately the campaign and proposed legislation as it stands has nothing to do with road safety and everything to do with being seen to do something in a stern and authoritative manner.
</rant>

* I'm not unsympathetic, of course Matt Briggs wants to see a positive change come out of the tragic loss of his wife, but I don't think any change that is being talked about qualifies as even remotely positive.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

As some wag has pointed out on twitter, you're statistically more likely to be novichoked to death by a Russian agent than killed by a cyclist*, and as the recent CA case showed the laws are perfectly capable of prosecuting a reckless cyclist who does kill, even if they are "old" laws. So what? Lots of laws are old.

So what possible justification can there be for devoting parliamentary time to this change in the law?

The only possible reason for this is to ride the wave of populist anti cyclist sentiment. And sure as night follows day it will be followed by mandatory insurance, mandatory helmets, mandatory use of non-existent segregated facilities and banning from the public roads. All of those things may be a while coming, but that's where we are headed. And before you reach for your RTA statistics and other evidence, remember evidence has no place in policy making. It's sentiment that counts. And the sentiment is: get rid of cyclists, they are a menace.

* Which may not actually be true, but it's not far off.

The husband of the woman who was killed by that fixie lunatic is an active campaigner that in combination with politicians who can use a little distraction from their brexit failures can lead to things like this. Personally i don't think that there is anything wrong with laws only thing is that usually they make them unworkable. It would save a lot of lives if they start enforcing current laws for example the need to make yourself visible in the dark. The amount of times i had a near hit because the other cyclist did'nt think even a poundland light is needed in the dark.

 

[Slick]

 

[mjr]

The amount of times i had a near hit because the other cyclist did'nt think even a poundland light is needed in the dark.

Why? Is your headlight too weak to see where you're going?

 

[classic33]

Woop woop. It's highly visible where this thread is going.

But my million candlepower light should be enough for any rule change. Admit to failing to see that, I'd say you shouldn't be near the road.

 

[winjim]

The nights are drawing in...

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Why? Is your headlight too weak to see where you're going?

Obviously not since i wrote near hit, but thanks for your concern my brakes and lights are fine. But why do you make this personal it is an discussion about new laws not about how shiny and good my or your lights are. And my point is that without any lights people are badly visible.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

That's something, no one has mentioned compulsory hiviz laws yet.

(Feeble attempt to get the thread back on track).

 

[mjr]

Obviously not since i wrote near hit, but thanks for your concern my brakes and lights are fine. But why do you make this personal it is an discussion about new laws not about how shiny and good my or your lights are. And my point is that without any lights people are badly visible.

And my point is that they are visible enough and our lights need to be good enough to see an unlit road surface and any unlit obstructions in it anyway. So you have two realistic options - better lights and slowing down - and anyway, requiring lights wouldn't be a new law!