Cyclist hit and run

[Cyclone 10]

Thankfully, the only cyclists on this forum who've admitted to cycling on the pavement, only do so when they 'think' it's safe ... meaning of course that the law doesn't apply to them. The pedallist in this article obviously was using the pavement, fully aware that it wasn't safe to do so, and that he was going to have an accident.

 

Two home secretaries have told cyclists to use the pavement when it's safer to do so.

Not like that though.

 

---------- Post added 21-05-2015 at 20:05 ----------

 

The frustrating thing is unlike a motor vehicle driver or rider he wont be banned from cycling for any time at all after this and unless hes jailed hell be out riding on pavements again before the day is out.

 

---------- Post added 21-05-2015 at 18:07 ----------

 

 

You mean the majority of drivers speed or the majority of speeding drivers?

 

If he has a car license it could be endorsed. And it probably should be.

[rudds1 102]

Two home secretaries have told cyclists to use the pavement when it's safer to do so.

Not like that though.

 

---------- Post added 21-05-2015 at 20:05 ----------

 

 

If he has a car license it could be endorsed. And it probably should be.

 

How can you endorse a car licence for something that's been done on a push bike?

[Cyclone 10]

Not at all.

 

It's just incredibly tiresome that some try to use the actions of people like the turd who was involved in the accident to attack others, banging on endlessly about "cyclists being beyond the law". Whilst simultaneously being happy to ignore, or even remain oblivious to the actions of other road users who "break the law" at will.

 

And of course kill 3000 people a year, unlike cyclists who kill 0.5

 

---------- Post added 21-05-2015 at 20:15 ----------

 

Yeah, but why do people let it affect them so much?

 

We have anti-cyclist, anti-motorist, anti-religion, anti-council, anti-everything.

 

It doesn't matter how many times you post on a thread, you are never going to stop it happening.

 

If you (not you personally) don't agree with a thread why not just make your point and then leave the thread, instead of continually coming back for more arguments?

 

Because car drivers who use it as an excuse to drive dangerously put cyclists lives at risk every day.

No one is put in any danger due to an anti-council thread.

 

---------- Post added 21-05-2015 at 20:16 ----------

 

The one thing all these morons have in common is they are morons, their mode of transport isnt anything to do with it.

Can't argue with that, spot on.

[Timeh 10]

On every journey where I go through a decent amount of traffic lights, at least one car will overtake me racing the traffic lights as I stop for a amber/red, this is more accepted by society, so it's tolerated. I'd say it's tolerated because people understand the frustrations of driving to work during the rush hour.

 

Unfortunately, it's also these frustrations that cause people to become more intolerent toward cyclists when they see they moving freely through rush hour traffic.

 

Then the age-old adage applies - you'll forgive your friend for eating with their hands whist criticising your enemy for using the wrong knife and fork.

Thats a good post and hits a few nails on the head. Id pretty much go along with all of it.

 

---------- Post added 21-05-2015 at 21:32 ----------

 

 

If he has a car license it could be endorsed. And it probably should be.

 

This is a good idea and would send a strong message but i cant imagine it being ever put into practice which is a shame because i think it could really work in bringing the rogue element into line.

[Cyclone 10]

It's also what can be done if a cyclist is caught running a red light, I thought it was common knowledge.

[alchemist 38]

Appalling behaviour, didn't even stop and apologise.

 

Apparently he did stop and swear at them, perhaps that was an apology?

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2015 at 08:20 ----------

 

Two home secretaries have told cyclists to use the pavement when it's safer to do so..

 

These two are cited everytime this type of thread comes up, if they are that sure about allowing the law to be broken when its "safe" why have they not withdrawn the law?

[Cyclone 10]

I wish they had actually just changed the law. Telling people to break the law is a pretty stupid thing for government to do when they have the power to just change it.

 

Perhaps they thought that it was such a trivial issue that it wasn't worth changing.

[alchemist 38]

I wish they had actually just changed the law. Telling people to break the law is a pretty stupid thing for government to do when they have the power to just change it.

 

Perhaps they thought that it was such a trivial issue that it wasn't worth changing.

 

Or more seriously, was it merely a "political statement" to try and grab some of the green cyclist vote?

[Cyclone 10]

It doesn't seem so;

 

When police and PCSOs were given the authority to issue Fixed Penalty Notices for pavement cycling in 1999 the Home Office minister Paul Boetang issued this guidance:

 

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

 

and

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10577958/Let-cyclists-go-on-pavements-if-roads-are-dangerous-minister-tells-police.html

 

Let cyclists go on pavements if roads are dangerous, minister tells police

Police are urged not to fine cyclists for using the pavement to escape dangerous junctions after complaints about heavy-handedness

 

The advice has been given twice to the police by MPs responsible for cycling and/or transport that they should not be fining cyclists who are using pavements safely.

 

Mr Goodwill reiterated guidance from 1999, when fixed penalties for cycling on pavements were first introduced, which states that the goal is not to penalise “responsible cyclists”.

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2015 at 09:55 ----------

 

This seems quite clear

“Enforcement is a matter for the Police but we endorse their approach of showing discretion in instances where a cyclist is using the pavement alongside a dangerous section of road out of fear of the traffic, but is being mindful to not put pedestrians at risk.”

Obviously the cyclist in the video who hit the toddler was NOT being mindful and should be fined.

[Eater Sundae 12]

It doesn't seem so;

 

 

 

and

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10577958/Let-cyclists-go-on-pavements-if-roads-are-dangerous-minister-tells-police.html

 

 

 

The advice has been given twice to the police by MPs responsible for cycling and/or transport that they should not be fining cyclists who are using pavements safely.

 

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2015 at 09:55 ----------

 

This seems quite clear

 

Obviously the cyclist in the video who hit the toddler was NOT being mindful and should be fined.

 

It does seem a bit wooly to give the police guidance in this way, yet not actually change the law.

 

But I agree that in this sort of case the police can fall back on the law as it stands, and they should.

[alchresearch 215]

Two home secretaries have told cyclists to use the pavement when it's safer to do so.

 

And then the police are warning 4 year olds for riding on the path. Its madness.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-31805312

[Cyclone 10]

Agreed.

 

They should simply change the law, make it clear what is and is not acceptable and then the police will know exactly where everyone stands (and cycles).