gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
I do drive
Dorset Police ClampDown
- Thread starter BSRU
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Hope you don't mind the misquote but the point is this is all beneficial to the good (and mediocre) motorist. The loading on insurance to cover for uninsured/untaxed/unlicensed drivers should justify that alone. It is not part of the infamous 'WoM' but a part of defence of motorists as well as other oad users.
A ban is the result of either a really bad bit of dangerous motoring or many smaller but still dangerous acts. Driving is a privilege and being caught whilst banned ought to be a permanent ban.
Which means driving when permanently banned has to be either, say, a years imprisonment or a year's income at the judge's discretion. Zero tolerance on unlicensed driving is rather more important than on the original offences.
Amanda P
Legendary Member
- Location
- York. Well, York-ish...
The rules are quite clear: we all know them. There's really no possible excuse for breaking a speed limit - but the points system and society's prevailing "gamesmanship" attitude leads us to feel that somehow we're being treated unfairly if we break the rules and are caught.
I can't agree with you.
The points system is crazy in my view. What other offences should we introduce it for? Could I be allowed to point my loaded shotgun at you in a public place three or four times without my certificate being revoked? I don't think so. But that's what happens with motor vehicles - equally dangerous devices. You're allowed to demonstrate that not only can you not be trusted to use it responsibly and in accordance with the rules three or four times, but that you're stupid and unobservant enough to get caught three or four times, before any sanction is taken against you. How can that be right?
If a famous football player gets a £60 fine, how can that possibly hurt him? The fine for a football player who earns my annual salary every week has to be more than it might be for me.
Let's assume for the moment that I'm less wealthy than you. It doesn't mean I haven't made decisions every bit as good as yours, or that I haven't worked just as hard. Perhaps I've chosen a career which takes just as much skill or knowledge as yours, but doesn't pay as well - maybe I'm a firefighter or a nurse. So why should I pay a larger proportion of my income than you in a fine if I break the rules?
Could be wrong, but I very much doubt that the drivers awareness courses are free - they're probably at least as much as the default fine of £60. Can anyone on here confirm this?
yes, you pay, and it's a profitable exercise for the AA who run the sheme.
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
its getting the toerags to court to send em down that is the problem. the authorities need to stop releasing them and remand them until the hearing. of course this costs money and we just don't have it.
do you think this guy
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3281674/Asylum-seeker-death-driver-stays.html
is going to be overly bothered by a permanent ban ? or the year inside.
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
i am scared!!!!
strangely though al of the cars i have owned have a device that tells me if i am breaking the speed laws and another 2/3 devices that help me to stop it. i use 1 of the devices and bits of my body to not actually break the law.
as an aside , how many cyclists ride defective vehicles ( knackered brakes , dodgy wheels , frames that are held together with muck and paint ) and how many understand that a speed limit applies to them too. (20mph is easily acheived)
there is no legally required speedometer on a bike, why?
hitting a pedestrian , and beleive me they realy don't look properly before walking out, on a bike at 20mph can quite easily kill them.
we always hear motorist saying we cyclists should be regulated with number plates insurance etc etc. why not?
a nominal fee per annum for the registration plate, insurance to cover accidental damage that we can cause , as lets face it we are not blameless. it might encourage motorists to give us the space we require on the road.
any surplus money can be used to invest in national cycle routes etc
Bit confused. The article is about whether the guy is to be deported. Nowt to do with imprisonment or driving while banned as far as I can see. Bit of Sun xenophobia as far as I can make out.
Legally speed limits do not apply to cyclists.
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
benborp
Guru
- Location
- further from Penge
how many cyclists ride defective vehicles? I wouldn't be surprised if it was a similar proportion to that of motorists and knackered cars. Although vehicle failure is a factor in a very small number of collisions.
how many understand that a speed limit applies to them too? The motor vehicle speed limit doesn't apply to cycles. Speed limits applicable to cyclists are usually the result of local byelaws or primary legislation.
there is no legally required speedometer on a bike, why? Because speed limits generally do not apply to cycles. Incidences where limits have been attempted lead to the farcical situation where cycles are not permitted to travel at a speed where they are considered to be safe to control. Also as you say cycles can easily reach 20mph - factors outside the control of a cyclist influence speed far more than they would a car driver. Maintaining a constant, steady speed is far more difficult on a bike than in a car, to be required to observe a limit on a bike would be far more distracting, maybe leading to more collisions with un-observant pedestrians.
we always hear motorist saying we cyclists should be regulated with number plates insurance etc etc. why not? Because the implementation of a workable, non-evadable system would run to an expense that could not be justified by the scale of the 'problems' it would seek to cure.
a nominal fee per annum for the registration plate, insurance to cover accidental damage that we can cause , as lets face it we are not blameless. it might encourage motorists to give us the space we require on the road.
any surplus money can be used to invest in national cycle routes etc There would not be any surplus from a nominal fee. The system would be hugely expensive to maintain in relation to any reasonable fee for using a non-polluting vehicle on the road. Third party insurance is a good idea and should be recommended to everyone that regularly cycles. However, cyclists are not a huge danger to those around them and they do not cause billions of pounds worth of damage.
Motoring and cycling in Britain are vastly different, seeking to apply the same solutions to similar problems in areas that vary by such a scale is not going to succeed. The costs of doing so would not be bearable - especially as they would only be measures to placate feelings rather than effect change.
how many understand that a speed limit applies to them too? The motor vehicle speed limit doesn't apply to cycles. Speed limits applicable to cyclists are usually the result of local byelaws or primary legislation.
there is no legally required speedometer on a bike, why? Because speed limits generally do not apply to cycles. Incidences where limits have been attempted lead to the farcical situation where cycles are not permitted to travel at a speed where they are considered to be safe to control. Also as you say cycles can easily reach 20mph - factors outside the control of a cyclist influence speed far more than they would a car driver. Maintaining a constant, steady speed is far more difficult on a bike than in a car, to be required to observe a limit on a bike would be far more distracting, maybe leading to more collisions with un-observant pedestrians.
we always hear motorist saying we cyclists should be regulated with number plates insurance etc etc. why not? Because the implementation of a workable, non-evadable system would run to an expense that could not be justified by the scale of the 'problems' it would seek to cure.
a nominal fee per annum for the registration plate, insurance to cover accidental damage that we can cause , as lets face it we are not blameless. it might encourage motorists to give us the space we require on the road.
any surplus money can be used to invest in national cycle routes etc There would not be any surplus from a nominal fee. The system would be hugely expensive to maintain in relation to any reasonable fee for using a non-polluting vehicle on the road. Third party insurance is a good idea and should be recommended to everyone that regularly cycles. However, cyclists are not a huge danger to those around them and they do not cause billions of pounds worth of damage.
Motoring and cycling in Britain are vastly different, seeking to apply the same solutions to similar problems in areas that vary by such a scale is not going to succeed. The costs of doing so would not be bearable - especially as they would only be measures to placate feelings rather than effect change.
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
You talk about devices that tell you if you are speeding and ones to brake. I presume you mean speedometer and brakes of w/e form. Well all cars have them, drivers speed because of their mentality not because they don't have a speedo.
The speed limit on public road only applies to motorvehicles and bot human powered. This is why we don't require a speedometer. Royal parks is different, cyclists must obey speed limits there.
Making bicycle riders register is stupid. It's meant to be an easy way to get aroun that is spur of the moment and available to anyone. If you start applying costs to it then people won't start cycling.
summerdays
Cycling in the sun
- Location
- Bristol
Could be wrong, but I very much doubt that the drivers awareness courses are free - they're probably at least as much as the default fine of £60. Can anyone on here confirm this?
I suspect that the course probably costs a bit but not as much as the fine - otherwise there would be no incentive for the person to go on the course. I know that there was/is a cycling course around here where cyclists caught jumping lights/cycling on the pavement can go on - and it costs about half the price of the fine and they get an hours training out of it... (I think).
As BSRU says, speed limits don't generally apply to cyclists except in a few places such as the Royal Parks when there is a By Law giving the maximum speed limit for bikes.
As for speedometer on bikes... how? I know we have little bike computers but they are all set up by us ... we have to remember to put them on the bike and take them off in case they get nicked etc. I've never checked with my GPS whether the speed shown is accurate.
As for the original TV shown this morning I didn't manage to catch it all - but it sounded good. I think we have allowed things to slip for far too long. As long as it appears that you can bend the rules AND that you normally get away with it, we carry on. I hate cars parked on the pavement. Apparently it is now not a problem unless it blocks the path enough that a pedestrian can't get by. It used to be that the cars were just parked with 2 wheels on the pavement, now because they got away with that it is now the whole of the car/van/etc.
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
from Highway code
69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]
the signs showing the limit are legal . as set down in the TSRGD 2002
is there proper case law showing that no cyclist has been convicted of a speeding offence but has been charged and appeared in court.
googling hasn't thrown anything up yet
the CPS likely hasn't got the bottle to try it if it hasn't happened
and as for applying costs making people not start. it never worked with cars did it
While the speed limit does not technically apply to cyclists - they can be done for furious riding if they are obviously ignoring it.
As for the rest dare I say most bikes are defective in that they would fail an equivalent MOT that cars must pass. BUT the issue is proportionality. A cyclist is mainly a danger to him/herself. It is rare that injury or death is caused to a third party and no serious incident that I can recall has not gone unpunished.
Whereas cyclists and pedestrians are at very real risk from motor vehicles and have always been so. Licences were brought in 1903 AFAIR pretty well near the start of the automobile revolution. Whilst the current killing rate is unacceptable it is much smaller than it would be without motor vehicle regulation. Whereas what affect would you expect from applying more stringent regulation to bikes? The answer simply would be:
1) Virtually no change in risk*
2) Considerable cost to be borne for little benefit
3) Less people would cycle
4) Obesity & other expensive health issues would grow
* The result of 3) may mean more people may drive so increasing risk.
So what's the point about diverting policing issues towards cyclists. Actually reading from our club records over zealous policing is an age old burden for the bicyclist.
from Highway code
69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]
the signs showing the limit are legal . as set down in the TSRGD 2002
is there proper case law showing that no cyclist has been convicted of a speeding offence but has been charged and appeared in court.
googling hasn't thrown anything up yet
the CPS likely hasn't got the bottle to try it if it hasn't happened
and as for applying costs making people not start. it never worked with cars did it
I used to think the Highway Code was the law but it is not, it is general guidance in the main, you need to look at the actual legislation to see what the law really is.
This website explains it:-
Speed Limits