Cyclists apopletic about law being applied to them

[Blackjack Davy]

Dunno if its some kind of nationwide crackdown on illegal road activity but they were stopping E-scooters on the seafront and confiscating them into the back of a police van if they weren't legal, its about time really. Which reminds me on a visit to sainsburys this week someone was wheeling one around the store, they're quite large aren't they. I guess we have to be thankful he wasn't riding it as well.

 

[Illusion]

http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/cyclelaw/licence_points.html

Dead link?

 

[Bear]

http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/cyclelaw/licence_points.html

404 page not found, if it says you can get points then it’s wrong https://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/community/featured/10-cycling-myths-uncovered, https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/cycling-drunk-crime-uk-law-fine-how-much-punishment-284896, https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/what-you-should-know-about-cycling-laws

A court has the ability to ban someone from driving for a cycling offence (doubt it happens much in reality) but not to endorse a licence

 

[Graetzbridge]

We walk quite a lot, mostly lanes. We frequently encounter cyclist. Many of them don't have bells and that, for me, is an issue. My hearing is impaired so I don't hear them.

 

[Smokey Deza]

Probably all cyclists in this thread also own cars, I think I know one that doesn't.
We are also filthy motorists that pay a tax for the emissions we make.

Oh right, so ****** to all those that die through my rancid, poisonous emmissions, because I pay for the right to do so.

What a wonderful mentality. And I don't own a car, largely for the above reason.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Oh right, so ****** to all those that die through my rancid, poisonous emmissions, because I pay for the right to do so.

What a wonderful mentality. And I don't own a car, largely for the above reason.

Brilliant, How did you get all that out of my post

 

[Uther]

Oh right, so ****** to all those that die through my rancid, poisonous emmissions, because I pay for the right to do so.

What a wonderful mentality. And I don't own a car, largely for the above reason.

You're on the internet though, so how was that computer / mobile phone made again?

 

[Resident]

Brilliant, How did you get all that out of my post

Emissions of the herbal kind I suspect.....

 

[jpaul]

Dead link?

sorry I was testing web skills -

....

The tiny exception
However, Part II of Schedule 2 hides a tiny exception to the above. In this part, it's column 2 that indicates whether the offence is one that could attract points.

The first row is covered as above - a cyclists cannot commit that offence.

The other rows are a bit more tricky - you can commit these offences without driving (without, in fact, having ever sat in a car at all). For example, if you go equipped for stealing a car, you can get 8 points on your licence. (As an aside, an interesting contrast there - kill someone with your car = 4 points, appear to be preparing to steal someone else's car = 8 points, do our law-makers really have their priorities straight?)

The point is, you can get points on your licence if you are cycling equipped for stealing etc. So, in the strict sense of the question at the top of the page, you can get points on your licence for something done while cycling.

What if you don't have a licence
It's sometimes said that cycling offences can't attract points because a cyclist might not have a licence to accumulate the points. Although the conclusion si right, the reasoning is baloney - there's a mechanism by which the points accumulate even if you don't have a licence. When you get a licence, it will have the points on. It's the way under-age joyriders (for example) get points. It's set out in Section 45 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, which has such phrasing as "whether he is at the time the holder of a licence or not" and so on.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

In some countries cars are allowed through red lights. Right turn on red is allowed in California if you stop at the line first. Check. Giveway. Proceed when it’s clear.

Yes I noticed, except they proceed even if you're walking across the road at the time so you literally have to run for it

 

[Bear]

sorry I was testing web skills -

....

So that’s a no then

 

[Smokey Deza]

You're on the internet though, so how was that computer / mobile phone made again?

Stuff is made and then sold. Anything unsold is generally destroyed. Not sure what your point is?

Not to mention that they're pretty essential tools to function in the modern day world. Driving to the shops or work, however, which are mere miles away, is not essential. It is a selfish luxury and convenience.

 

[Smokey Deza]

Brilliant, How did you get all that out of my post

Because you brought up emissions tax. What like it cleans the air of your vile toxins?

The correct response was to go outside and fall on your car.

 

[Malt_Vinegar]

I'm a frequent pedestrian, runner, cyclist, motorcyclist and a car driver.
Red light running cyclists are idiots and deserve to get punished along with anyone else willingly ignoring red lights.

 

[Richie]

Stuff is made and then sold. Anything unsold is generally destroyed. Not sure what your point is?

Not to mention that they're pretty essential tools to function in the modern day world. Driving to the shops or work, however, which are mere miles away, is not essential. It is a selfish luxury and convenience.

What would you class as "mere miles" for something like work?

 

[One More Solo]

I'm an avid cyclist and a motorist of many years. I've seen some hair raising close calls on my bike, and a few in the car too. I believe we all should be more tolerant of each other. There are lots of pros and cons to each argument, but the bottom line is, cyclists are legally entitled to use the road, and the cycle path. Using the cycle path is my preference but it is quite often not possible, due to dog walkers (with dogs off leads), and groups of pensioners who think they are more entitled than I. But that said, where I can, I use the cycle path.

I would never dream of riding two abreast, especially on narrow roads. It's just plain rude, even if it is legal. I think a lot of people need to use their common sense, and many motorists (and cyclists for that matter) are in too much of a rush to use their brain accordingly.

In the vast majority of cases riding two abreast is best for everyone. It makes forcing an overtake on narrow stretches harder, and makes overtaking on wider sections easier. Unfortunately a number of drivers are too stupid to see that.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Because you brought up emissions tax. What like it cleans the air of your vile toxins?

The correct response was to go outside and fall on your car.

What about the vile toxins you have contributed to by having that phone, computer and ordering online etc
When you spout crap like that you'd better be clean.

 

[Drollic]

In the vast majority of cases riding two abreast is best for everyone. It makes forcing an overtake on narrow stretches harder, and makes overtaking on wider sections easier. Unfortunately a number of drivers are too stupid to see that.

Legal yes, but it needlessly provokes the vehicle driver who likely won't be aware. If they don't know this, they're relying on what they think is right, and it doesn't look right. If the cyclists have a 'reasonable' gap between them, that's going to need to be a fairly wide road to legally pass the outside cyclist. Why would you want to make an overtake difficult? You're not proving any point if you get hit, end up injured and then proceed to lose fitness in no time at all.

 

[Malt_Vinegar]

Legal yes, but it needlessly provokes the vehicle driver who likely won't be aware. If they don't know this, they're relying on what they think is right, and it doesn't look right. If the cyclists have a 'reasonable' gap between them, that's going to need to be a fairly wide road to legally pass the outside cyclist. Why would you want to make an overtake difficult? You're not proving any point if you get hit, end up injured and then proceed to lose fitness in no time at all.

The goal is not to make an overtake "difficult" it's to ensure that people only attempt to overtake in a safe way. As if the "vehicle" in question was a slow moving larger vehicle (horse/tractor/etc).

The cyclist ahead of you is likely sat higher, and can see/hear traffic that a following driver may not see/hear. Which means they likely know more than the driver behind about what is coming up ahead.

As such, they may want to ensure an overtake is safer by taking a prime road position. Much in the same way I would on my motorcycle approaching a junction to discourage overtakes as I am leaving the carriageway.

Remember, unlike in a car where a careless overtake might cause the person being overtaken a dinged wheel/popped tyre, or perhaps some bent panels. This is far more likely to seriously injure or kill a cyclist.

Treat them like you would when passing a horse or tractor and you will all be much safer. In fact most cyclists I come across nowerdays usually wave me by after a short time when they see it is safe to do so. It costs me nothing, and I usually get a cheerful wave after I flash my hazards to acknowledge their assistance.

 

[One More Solo]

Legal yes, but it needlessly provokes the vehicle driver who likely won't be aware. If they don't know this, they're relying on what they think is right, and it doesn't look right. If the cyclists have a 'reasonable' gap between them, that's going to need to be a fairly wide road to legally pass the outside cyclist. Why would you want to make an overtake difficult? You're not proving any point if you get hit, end up injured and then proceed to lose fitness in no time at all.

That’s exactly the point. If it’s not safe to pass one rider, it’s not safe to pass two. Just because drivers can force themselves through gaps if there is a single rider doesn’t make it safe. There’s nothing scarier than drivers overtaking you on blind stretches of road where the only evasive options they have are a head on with opposing traffic, or forcing you off the road. Guess which one they will pick 99% of the time. If riding two abreast makes that manoeuvre more difficult then that is a good thing for everyone.