stifflersmom   11 #25 Posted August 14, 2018 Perhaps it might be that their driving wasn't dangerous....so they were not charged with it as such...  This is the problem - dangerous driving is deemed to be a level that is "far below" what is expected of a competent driver, whilst "careless driving is "below". Differentiating between the two is subjective, and in a plea bargain motorists often will choose to plead guilty to a lesser charge rather than face trial under the more serious offence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
davyboy   17 #26 Posted August 14, 2018 It's irrelevant - almost all cyclists have a voice. Neither is much use if the person you're trying to alert is listening to headphones or in a car with some soundproofing (i.e. all of them).  No, it's not irrelevant. The number of times when on a cyclist/pedestrian path a cyclist has approached from behind and passed so close without any warning (even a shout) that if we had moved literally one foot to the side we and the cyclist would have been injured. So anyone answer my question? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
stifflersmom   11 #27 Posted August 14, 2018 Do cycles have to have a means of warning ...hooter, bell etc?  Up until 2011 it was legal requirement that new bicycles had to be sold with a bell, but it was never a legal requirement to have one as a permanent fixture. I find a bell useful on shared paths, particularly on the underpasses where you can't see the exit/entrance round a 90 degree bend. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Top Cats Hat   10 #28 Posted August 14, 2018 a cyclist has approached from behind and passed so close without any warning (even a shout) that if we had moved literally one foot to the side we and the cyclist would have been injured.  That is rarely true.  If I ring a bell and it isn't acknowledged then I will pass without further ringing. It might give the pedestrian a shock but it avoids them stepping in front of me when they hear the bell at the last minute causing them and me damage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
altus   513 #29 Posted August 14, 2018 No, it's not irrelevant. They are both means of alerting pedestrians to the presence of a cyclist - whether either method gets used or whether their effect is counteracted by the pedestrian wearing headphones is another matter.  The number of times when on a cyclist/pedestrian path a cyclist has approached from behind and passed so close without any warning (even a shout) that if we had moved literally one foot to the side we and the cyclist would have been injured. Alerting pedestrians frequently causes them move to the side as they look to see where the noise came from. This often results in them moving into the path of a cyclist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Vaati   11 #30 Posted August 14, 2018 Off topic posts have been removed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Albert smith   11 #31 Posted August 14, 2018 If this dangerous cycling law does come in to force, I look forward to the dangerous driving law being properly enforced to help address the road 99.4% of deaths which involve a motor vehicle. Currently too many drivers are prosecuted under the lesser charge of 'careless driving'...even when they kill people. And parking in cycle lanes inc police and traffic wardens vehicles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Marsaud   10 #32 Posted August 14, 2018 That is rarely true.  If I ring a bell and it isn't acknowledged then I will pass without further ringing. It might give the pedestrian a shock but it avoids them stepping in front of me when they hear the bell at the last minute causing them and me damage.  If you ring a bell and it isn’t acknowledged, I do hope that you give the pedestrian as much room as you would when overtaking a car.  That way, if the pedestrian moves from the line they are walking on, they would still be safe. Any other course of action would be reckless Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Top Cats Hat   10 #33 Posted August 14, 2018 If you ring a bell and it isn’t acknowledged, I do hope that you give the pedestrian as much room as you would when overtaking a car. That way, if the pedestrian moves from the line they are walking on, they would still be safe. Any other course of action would be reckless  The only time I have ever had a pedestrian moving off the line they were on was when I rang my bell too late.  I'm not saying that it can never happen but it is much more likely if they are startled. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
WalkleyIan   10 #34 Posted August 23, 2018 the consultation is out  https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/new-cycling-offences-causing-death-or-serious-injury-when-cycling   Very London centric. It's being promoted by the London black cab trade at the request of the Kim Briggs Campaign. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...