Just watching the news about reviewing Cycling laws

[Paulus]

I couldn't see that bit.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The likeliest is that nothing will happen. There just isn't the legislative room for anything remotely controversial.

Legislation via proclamation?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

In what way us the 1861 act " not fit for purpose"? Alliston breached it was convicted, and has been sentenced. What else must happen?

He clearly is articulate and reasonable sounding. I don't doubt that he is an intelligent man, nor do I doubt that he is grieving. But I do believe he is strongly motivated by a desire to blame someone or something, probably understandably, and that, whatever he says, or indeed believes, his campaign will be part of a process that will reduce cycling rates in this country.

No, I don't expect him, or anyone, to refrain from criticising Alliston and others who ride in the same way. But blaming all cyclists for what a few idiots do helps nothing.

In what way is Briggs blaming all cyclists?

 

[adscrim]

But blaming all cyclists for what a few idiots do helps nothing.

I see it as a concentration and consequence issue. The concentration of persons likely to act recklessly, I believe, is the same across all modes of transport. It would appear more of them don't fear the consequences when on specific modes (bikes?). I don't think it helps that my experience of 'reckless' cycling behaviour is more blatant than by motorists. Where you have motorists running reds by not stopping on amber, you have cyclists running reds while all the other traffic is stationary (not actually that many, but because everyone else going that way at those lights is sitting still, they stand out more). Motorist accepts the first but wouldn't do the second despite them essentially being the same thing.

When you add in the current climate of hate the media seems to be pushing and the constant presence of hate for someone that manages to get somewhere quicker than someone else and it's a bit of a perfect storm for anyone that chooses to ride a bike.

 

[winjim]

Here is the Secret Barrister's take on things. Seems to be broadly in favour of a review of the law. I don't think I agree about the issue of culpability though, and the bell is maybe a bit of an irrelevance.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/20/some-thoughts-on-charlie-alliston-and-death-on-the-roads/

 

[oldstrath]

Here is the Secret Barrister's take on things. Seems to be broadly in favour of a review of the law. I don't think I agree about the issue of culpability though, and the bell is maybe a bit of an irrelevance.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/09/20/some-thoughts-on-charlie-alliston-and-death-on-the-roads/

Still no attempt to address the issue that cyclists would be tried by a jury with little relevant experience.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Still no attempt to address the issue that cyclists would be tried by a jury with little relevant experience.

That's exactly how it is right now.

It worries me greatly, particularly when the reaction from a police officer (taking a statement about my latest close pass) to me cycling to work every day was a shocked intake of breath, as though it was somehow reckless regard for my own safety. That's not an uncommon view, and if it's present within the people who are supposed to look after us, it'll be there in the general public from which jury members are picked.

They, just like that cop, view the things that cycling on our busy roads normally entail as being risks that we bring upon ourselves. Riding centrally in the lane, for example, attracts criticism and surprise because its safety benefit is not understood by those who don't regularly ride. This gives us juries of people who recoil from cycling as a viable means of daily transport and instead regard it as a hazardous undertaking that the rider voluntarily exposes himself to. It'll be 'your own fault' when things go wrong and a driver hits you. He'll be judged as though they were in his shoes and not yours. Throw in the clichés of hi-vis and helmets and it only gets worse.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Still no attempt to address the issue that cyclists would be tried by a jury with little relevant experience.

That really isn't what the idea of a jury of your peers is about. If a woman in an abusive relationship harms her abuser should the jury be made up of people who share her experience, or his?

 

[EasyPeez]

The "cyclists that give the rest of us a bad name" trope raises its head with all too depressing frequency, I've noticed. No, they don't give the rest of us a bad name, because they don't represent us in any way

While your point is perfectly sensible and logical, the world and the people within are not always so.

You honestly believe that poor/contentious behaviour by one member or group from within a subset of society, and the consequent media reporting thereof, has no bearing on the rest of that subset, in terms of how the rest of society perceives and behaves towards them? An altered perception of the whole subset based on an isolated incident or collection of incidents might be illogical, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

If you don't believe me, try talking to anyone who was part of a mining community in the 80s. Or a football supporter post-Heysel. Or an MP post-expenses scandal. Or a Muslim post-9/11. Or....

 

[captain nemo1701]

The Bristol Post has been demonising us for years. A recent article on their website was regarding a cycle path along by Temple Meads station that has been shut off temporarily with concrete blocks as they are redesigning the junction at the end. They have put up blue advisory 'Cyclists dismount' signs at both ends although if you ask me, since no-one is working on the cycle path itself, they aren't needed at the eastern end.

The Bristol Post ran an article about 'Cyclists told to dismount' etc which suggested, reading in between the lines, that we are breaking the law by not dismounting. But then the article went on to say that the signs are purely advisory and anyone not dismounting was in no way breaking the law.

So what was the point of writing an article about non-law breaking??.

Oh, yeah, it's to prod all their thicko readership (one rung below the Daily Wail) into reacting.....silly me

 

[Spoked Wheels]

The main difference between some places in North Zealand and places in England is that the Danes ensure the cycle lane created by painting a lane up the middle of a pavement actually connects to another one or merges back into the road sensibly. Other than that, shoot like https://www.instantstreetview.com/@55.988422,12.557118,233.23h,-24.76p,1z would be unsurprising in this country.


A km/h limit in this country, really? Secondly, that's not legally enforceable, is it?

Sorry, I meant miles per hour.

Not legally enforceable, is it? Sorry but that is the attitude that give cyclists a bad name. I mean if I ignore the speed limit couse I can get away with it then we are not making any friends with pedestrians.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

You honestly believe that poor/contentious behaviour by one member or group from within a subset of society, and the consequent media reporting thereof, has no bearing on the rest of that subset, in terms of how the rest of society perceives and behaves towards them?

Does poor/contentious behaviour by one member or group from within a subset of society, and the consequent media reporting thereof, have any bearing on the rest of that subset, in terms of how you perceive and behave towards them?

If yes, get a grip and sort yourself out.
If no, credit other people with having as much sense as you have.

 

[mjr]

Not legally enforceable, is it? Sorry but that is the attitude that give cyclists a bad name. I mean if I ignore the speed limit couse I can get away with it then we are not making any friends with pedestrians.

What's giving cyclists a bad name is troll councils putting up signs which have no legal effect and mainly serve to cause conflict. I don't see why pedestrians care what speed people do as long as it's not fast anywhere near them.

You wouldn't be ignoring any speed limit because there is no speed limit. The highway authority has exceeded its powers by posting such a limit (and it's not a royal park so please let's not go into them again), and is acting in a manner that is likely to discourage cycling, and in that case I think it's a county council, so it's contrary to their public health duties. Fine that council for being nobbers.

If there's a problem with reckless cyclists, then deal with them. There are laws for that already. It doesn't need speed limit signs or new laws to set speed limits or anything of that nonsense. Let's not accept councils posting bullshit signs that just make matters worse instead of actually dealing with a problem - except I strongly suspect the problem isn't as bad as claimed by newspapers that scour areas for every available rumour of an incident and report all the Chinese whispers about how Janet three doors down lost both legs after being run over by a MTBer with razor blades on their disc brake rotors (in reality, Janet saw an MTB on the other side of the prom and liked its paintwork).

Just to ice the cake, Bournemouth has a freaking extra-long minibus ("land train") revving up and down that so-called promenade, belching out fumes, with flashing lights and a whistle telling pedestrians to get out of the farking way, doesn't it? People on bikes should be the least of the worries.

 

[oldstrath]

That really isn't what the idea of a jury of your peers is about. If a woman in an abusive relationship harms her abuser should the jury be made up of people who share her experience, or his?

By default, most juries hearing driving offences will have substantial current experience of driving. You think this makes no difference? Any attempt at equal treatment would require juries of cyclists surely?

 

[growingvegetables]

Oh lordy. http://road.cc/content/news/229656-...sts-follow-highway-code…-well-he-asks-leaders. Wota****.

"Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign tweeted the letter today, commenting: “Unprecedented ministerial action after 2 cycle related deaths. Awaiting 750 times this much effort to address the 1500+ motor-related deaths.”