Police fining cyclist for breaking the law..

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
No ive seen your picture.
Seriously - my knowledge or interest in the highway code is below zero. Beleive me it is quite possible to maintain a high level of ignaorance regarding highway code , road laws etc.
For most people the only time they open a highway code is to pass their driving test.
That dosnt make them bad people btw.
Then the fines will be a great incentive to read it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
 

Rapples

Guru
Location
Wixamtree
Then the fines will be a great incentive to read it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

I'm not so sure Angelfish

The law has to make itself clear and umambiguous. See my post about pavement cycling.:thumbsup:

Every citizen shouldn't have to go out of their way to know the law inside out to get about their daily lives without hinderence from the state. On the other hand we all need to abide by the same rules.

There is a balance to be had, and I don't believe fines are the answer.
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
I'm not so sure Angelfish

The law has to make itself clear and umambiguous. See my post about pavement cycling.:thumbsup:

Every citizen shouldn't have to go out of their way to know the law inside out to get about their daily lives without hinderence from the state. On the other hand we all need to abide by the same rules.

There is a balance to be had, and I don't believe fines are the answer.
All citizens have a obligation to know the basic laws of the land. We expect drivers to be aware of cyclists rights under the law after all.
As for pavement cycling I see no ambiguity. If there are signs showing cycling is allowed then you may cycle if not you may not.
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
or are you me ????
I don't think so but then I have been wrong before.
 

Buddfox

Veteran
Location
London
We expect drivers to be aware of cyclists rights under the law after all.

I would imagine that the same group of cyclists who don't know it's illegal to ride through a red light don't know (or care) whether drivers know their rights under the law (because they might not know as a cyclist that they have any).

Generally, I don't find it that contentious that many, or indeed the majority, of cyclists don't know the basic laws that apply to their getting around. As a pedestrian, it's never occurred to me to think what laws apply to me (are there any?). As a pedestrian I go where I choose. Is that against the law?

Why is it so surprising that people on bikes think the same? People could easily assume that the reason you do a driving test is because a car is a big metal object that travels at speed and needs some skill to use. So there is a test to protect you and others, and rules of the road to control you. None of the above need apply to bikes - and so many might assume that there are no rules that apply to bikes. They may see cyclists stopped at red lights and just think they're being cautious, for example.
 

Rapples

Guru
Location
Wixamtree
All citizens have a obligation to know the basic laws of the land. We expect drivers to be aware of cyclists rights under the law after all.
As for pavement cycling I see no ambiguity. If there are signs showing cycling is allowed then you may cycle if not you may not.

Yes the basic laws that's true, but not every single law.

Pavement cycling has become more ambiguous over the last 30 years because once it was very clear, an adult was not allowed to cycle on the pavement (OK it was probably wheel size or something)

Now, sometimes you are, sometimes you're not, you have to give way, you don't have to give way. It's why I always cycle on the road, no need to keep checking signs. Have you seen some of the ridiculous cyclepaths where there are dismount signs at every driveway or junction? A sign doesn't always mean you have a legal obligation to follow it., but to disregard it is to lay yourself open to blame or prosecution.

Training course or fine? Erm, well how much do I earn and can I take the time off work and not lose pay? I think the training course is a lose lose situation, it costs money for the state and costs money for either the individual and/or the employer ;)

Of course YMMV
 
BUDDFOX YOU SAY THAT AS A PEDESTRIAN YOU GO WHERE YOU CHOOSE IS THAT WRONG well the short answer is YES IT IS have you not heard of the laws of tresspass i can only assume that you have and will readilly admitt that after brief thought , their are laws covering allmost every thing we do and if we want a decent society they must be adhered to ....
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
I would imagine that the same group of cyclists who don't know it's illegal to ride through a red light don't know (or care) whether drivers know their rights under the law (because they might not know as a cyclist that they have any).

Generally, I don't find it that contentious that many, or indeed the majority, of cyclists don't know the basic laws that apply to their getting around. As a pedestrian, it's never occurred to me to think what laws apply to me (are there any?). As a pedestrian I go where I choose. Is that against the law?

Why is it so surprising that people on bikes think the same? People could easily assume that the reason you do a driving test is because a car is a big metal object that travels at speed and needs some skill to use. So there is a test to protect you and others, and rules of the road to control you. None of the above need apply to bikes - and so many might assume that there are no rules that apply to bikes. They may see cyclists stopped at red lights and just think they're being cautious, for example.
So no association would be made in the mind of a cyclist that Red means stop. I find it terrifying that people would take to the roads on any form of transport and not no the required laws.
 

Buddfox

Veteran
Location
London
BUDDFOX YOU SAY THAT AS A PEDESTRIAN YOU GO WHERE YOU CHOOSE IS THAT WRONG well the short answer is YES IT IS have you not heard of the laws of tresspass i can only assume that you have and will readilly admitt that after brief thought , their are laws covering allmost every thing we do and if we want a decent society they must be adhered to ....

Ha! I knew some idiot would write this - congratulations for making the most irrelevant argument in the history of the world.

I would argue if you want a decent society, laws must not always be adhered to. Otherwise we live in a police state!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom