It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement

[Rich B]

Different cultures innit. Italians don't care if you use their cars as parking sensors, Dutch prioritise bikes over everything else, in Vietnam - the bigger the vehicle the more priority it has (and potentially fatal accidents are regular), etc...

In the UK, the car is an extension of our own little island, so anyone coming near it needs to be fought.

[ZedLeg]

They were mostly Americans

[nuttinnew]

People in the UK seem predisposed to find the most stressful way to do anything tbh.

Sounds like a good title for a(nother) thread in the moaning forum.

[Gavster]

I was expecting a cameo from cycling Miney

[Swervin_Mervin]

People in the UK seem predisposed to find the most stressful way to do anything tbh.

Like, the roads in a lot of Europe are chaotic but most seem to shrug it off. People here treat the commute like going to war.

That is true tbf.

[nuttinnew]

[jamcg]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016715

“Causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling is set to become an offence, after the government agreed to a change in the law.

Under the change, dangerous cyclists could face up to 14 years in prison.”

[dinny_g]

Damn right...

[Barry]

Causing death or serious injury should carry the same penalty regardless of how it happened, but lets face it, I can't see many cyclists falling foul of this.

[Simon]

/r/ukbike on Reddit is up in arms about this. So much 'whataboutism' about the deaths caused by motorists, and even a couple of comments that they need "more protection from pedestrians who step out into the road". LOL. Twats.

[Gavster]

/r/ukbike on Reddit is up in arms about this. So much 'whataboutism' about the deaths caused by motorists, and even a couple of comments that they need "more protection from pedestrians who step out into the road". LOL. Twats.

I was wondering where the outraged cyclists were ranting about this new offence, because it was inevitable they'd be going crazy somewhere thanks for the update.

What they seem to be ignoring is the 'dangerous or careless' part of this new law. The new offence will have absolutely zero impact on anyone who is a safe and careful cyclist.

[Ascender]

Pre social media, that would be one of those news stories which everyone would just read, say "yip, fair enough" and move on with their lives.

[ZedLeg]

I'm not totally convinced yet tbh, the line of who's at more risk between a ped and a cyclist isn't as defined as a ped or cyclist and a car.

Like, if someone steps off a pavement without looking, causing me to swerve to avoid them and get hit by a car, that's an accident. If I hit the person instead, I'd be liable for their injury?

Obviously the thing with that kid on the fixie in London has driven them to try and tidy up the law and there are genuinely dangerous cyclists out there. I just want to see that it's not going to criminalise people for genuine accidents.

[Gavster]

I've hit pedestrians a few times when cycling and they always came off worse than I did, and it's always the same that they step off the kerb without looking. Pedestrians are definitely more vulnerable.

If it's clear I was cycling with due care and attention, then I shouldn't face any charges or responsibilty for their injuries either - the law is aimed at people who are cycling dangerously. Then it's up to the courts to decide where the line is. If this means that cyclists will begin to think twice about their speed and behaviour on the roads, that's a good thing.

[ZedLeg]

Obviously in a straight hit between me on my bike (110kg moving at 20 mph ish) and a ped they'll come off worse, what I meant by risk is that if I have to swerve into traffic to avoid something the risk to me of being hit by something order of magnitude bigger goes up.

Like I say, I'm not against the legislation. Just curious to see how it's implemented.

[Mito Man]

I’d like to know how many cyclists managed to run over a pedestrian and kill or seriously injure them and not get slapped with anything in a legal sense that we have had to have this legislation introduced
I mean if it were that easy we’d see the young gangsters using bicycle assassinations rather than knives.

[Swervin_Mervin]

I'm not totally convinced yet tbh, the line of who's at more risk between a ped and a cyclist isn't as defined as a ped or cyclist and a car.

Like, if someone steps off a pavement without looking, causing me to swerve to avoid them and get hit by a car, that's an accident. If I hit the person instead, I'd be liable for their injury?

Obviously the thing with that kid on the fixie in London has driven them to try and tidy up the law and there are genuinely dangerous cyclists out there. I just want to see that it's not going to criminalise people for genuine accidents.

But we've already started down that path with the presumption of the burden of guilt on vehicle drivers that hit peds or cyclists - regardless of whether the more vulnerable user was "to blame" for the incident. And once you start with that the what's good enough for the goose has to be good enough for the gander as well.

Not saying I agree. However, I do think it's fair that at least the mechanism exists in law to pursue genuinely dangerous cyclists. Just hope the application is sensible.

[ZedLeg]

I don't know why I'm so concerned tbh, I haven't fallen off my bike in 20 years and I've never hit anyone on it. I'd hate to see anyone, cyclist or driver go to jail due to a ped not paying attention I guess.

[dinny_g]

But we've already started down that path with the presumption of the burden of guilt on vehicle drivers that hit peds or cyclists - regardless of whether the more vulnerable user was "to blame" for the incident. And once you start with that the what's good enough for the goose has to be good enough for the gander as well.

That’s about it - and I do actually agree with it.

[nuttinnew]