Strict Liability Law - Drivers to be auto blamed for all accidents with cyclists

I can't trackstand for toffee. I can do the almost stationary wiggle dance all day long but at the slightest sign of backwards movement my brain nopes and my foot hits the deck.
 
Your statement was you NEED a fixed hub, but you don't. Most bikes have brikes, most do not have fixed hubs so makes sense to use the brakes.
 
robj20 said:
Your statement was you NEED a fixed hub, but you don't. Most bikes have brikes, most do not have fixed hubs so makes sense to use the brakes.
Click to expand...

True, but track bikes by definition don't have brakes. Hence track standing requires a fixed gear.

It's semantics anyway, I'm probably just being a pedant.
 
more like a fixed hub helps you.. i can track stand for ages but sometimes i can't do it for a few seconds! its either the potholes, debris on the road, hill or wind that stops me from doing it.
 
amigafan2003 said:
For the purposes of the RTA though a cycle is not a vehicle. Just like a horse is not a vehicle.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/192
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8197430.stm - the exact offence is:

""Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."


So case law dictates that a cycle is a vehicle
 
Wow absolutely unreal. I had to check the date on the op's post because I thought it probably was an April Fool joke.

I really need to invest in one of those trip camera Go Pro thingys so I have a 'third' witness as this just screams insurance fraud and knowing this daft government it will probably be bought in as law.

Being a car owner is just getting harder and harder...
 
[DOD]Asprilla;24139452 said:
On the subject of a bicycle being defined as a vehicle I can't find a thing. Hats off.
However, I suspect it will be defined by precedent.
Click to expand...

There are precedents where cyclists have been charged under the RTA but have had the charges dropped once it was figured out they are not a "vehicle" in the definitions in the RTA. That's why I was pretty certain about my earlier statement.

Now it's my turn to find a reference ;-)

chriscpritchard said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8197430.stm - the exact offence is:

So case law dictates that a cycle is a vehicle
Click to expand...

That's been successfully challenged since - that's the case I'm looking for.

"Furious cycling" however is still applicable ;-)

But for the record, I'd just like to see the RTA amended to make it blatantly clear that a cyclist must obey traffic signals - no if's or buts - but keep the "if you're pushing a cycle then you're a pedestrian" (otherwise you'll create a whole host of problems with cycle racks that aren't immediately next to road).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[DOD]Asprilla;24141395 said:
Go to a Royal Park and you can get done for speeding.
Click to expand...

Yup, but that's under a local byelaw (same as cycling on the pavement) not the RTA.
 
v0n said:
But I see red bus drivers in London now doing this tail to front thing, where they only leave about two inches of space from bumper of the bus, lorry or car in front
Click to expand...


all modern buses/double deckers do this in most cities, because the drivers knees are basically the front of the bus and with their great visibility for the front of their vehicle they can do it easily.


they don't do it to **** off bikes specifically.

plus that would have to be some epically stupid filtering to place yourself in between a bus and a lorry (nose to tail with you in between) in stand still traffic.
 
Had a really close one today from a bus driver that involved passengers and pedestrians having a go at him.
I was exactly here in this position when approaching the speed bump when a bus tried to overtake me :eek: - https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=ST...WntVc30SKQStnL5fq5Zmlw&cbp=12,305.38,,0,25.65
Just look round and see where he must have been to try, I wouldn't mind but I was doing around 20mph.
He ended up braking very hard and I only knew he was there when I heard the squeal so also stopped.
The driver opens his door and starts giving me abuse when virtually all the passengers start having a go at him and two pedestrians had run over to have a go at him.
Funnily enough he is still blaming me even though everybody else is blaming him and a bloke is going mad because his wife had fell over and injured herself.
Just before getting off the bus I shouted "So who's fault was it?" and virtually everybody shouted "The driver" with several saying they were going to report him.
When I got off he called me another word for masturbator.
 
grudas said:
what an idiot.. that looks just wide enough for a bus it self.. no way can you over take anyone there
Click to expand...

It also means he was speeding through the town on the wrong side of the road.
Funnily enough the main problem with that piece of road are pedestrians walking straight off the pavement because it is blocked off to normal traffic.
 
So I was driving yesterday and had a motorcycle behind me to my right, I did the normal thing and pulled to the left hand side of the road to let him past. Out of nowhere a cyclist pulled out of a junction right in front of me without looking and went onto the left hand side of the road, for which there was no space because the motorcycle was going past me. He made me swerve, nearly hitting the motorcyclist who was passing and narrowly missing the cyclist himself who pulled out.

Apparently this would be my fault according to this law, and i'd have to prove it wasn't my fault, yet without any cameras on my car I don't see how i could prove it was his.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom