Police action on motorists endangering cyclists

[The Joker 10]

the car should deliberately crash into the one who has paid the least tax (the three kids at the bus stop).

 

That'll make the right-whingers happy

[RootsBooster 24]

Some of that is moot as the car is unlikely to be able to detect the age of a pedestrian. Indeed even a human driver, reacting in a crisis is unlikely to note the age.

Of course the human reaction will in most cases be to save themselves, particularly as it happens as muscle memory, not a conscious rational decision.

 

Speaking of pendantry, I think it'd be muscle reflex rather than muscle memory, unless the driver has a history of near misses

[Cyclone 10]

Muscle memory is the execution of a physical skill without conscious thought. Hopefully most competent drivers don't have to think "Oh, I must swerve to avoid the unexpected obstacle" before doing it.

Reflex speed determines how quickly they act, muscle memory determines what action they take.

[shims 10]

I didn't claim that all vehicles are zero rated. I pointed out that there are zero rated cars. So even if VED did apply to non-motorised vehicles (which it doesn't, for good reason), they would be zero rated and the entire process would be pointless.

I know there are zero-rated cars. We all know that there are other compulsary costs and regulations levied on running a motor vehicle, compared to using a bicycle.

 

The 2nd "point" was a question. You can tell because it ends with a "?"... Can you answer it?

I would like ALL vehicle users to pay at least some VED if any have to, regardless of emissions. I would like the roads to be maintained to a satisfactory standard as a result which would mean making it a road tax again.

 

It's a guess.

Yes. Exactly.

 

I get about 18 - 20 mpg. Should you move out of my way because I pay more tax through fuel? Or perhaps I should move out of your way? This is the argument you are using for bikes, why don't you want to apply it to other cars?

 

What I actually stated was this: "Car owners often want to reach their destination by travelling at the permissible speed limit, without unnecessary hold-ups such as when groups of cyclists refuse to drop back to single file, regardless of how much of a tailback they may be causing. Motorists pay a considerable premium to be on the highway and many probably see their commuting as having priority."

 

No, through the use of simple logic we can establish that bikes do not cause any delay to motorists in the vast majority of cases.

I agree. I note you've added a caveat now, though.

 

I doubt that you can even make up a story where you've actually been delayed by a cyclist, never mind have a true one to share.

I remember a few instances well. All have taken place on busy rural roads where national speed limit applies.

 

Of course, speeding is far more common than dangerous driving.

I'm not sure that it is. I see, incompetent driving every time I'm out but it's far easier to detect speeding without active monitoring i.e. easy money for the treasury. A majority of the speeding I witness when driving is far from dangerous. 100% of the dangerous driving I witness is.

 

But either way, the police should continue to try to remove dangerous drivers, and that includes ones who overtake dangerously.

Yes, they should but they'll never be gone hence why I said that cyclists are the most vulnerable re: crash protection. We don't live in a utopia. Only motorbikes are more hazardous to the owner.

 

My car has been damaged in the past by motorists whilst parked who have made off. It has never been damaged by a cyclist. That's obviously an anecdote, but given the number of threads on the forum about car park damage, and the lack of any threads about cyclist damage, I think it's safe to assume that damage caused by another motorist is more likely and that if they can they will do a runner.

Far more cars on the road, cyclists not using car parking spaces in car parks etc.

 

In some limited circumstances yes, but not in the manner which you described, which to be clear was deliberately undertaking a car which was using the overtaking lane for no reason.

It's not a legal requirement to remain behind them. It's not illegal to return to the left hand lane after occupying the right-hand lane. I's correct when no longer overtaking, nor turning right ahead. Also, it's not illegal to pass slower moving traffic to your right.

[Cyclone 10]

I know there are zero-rated cars. We all know that there are other compulsary costs and regulations levied on running a motor vehicle, compared to using a bicycle.

So, cars cost more to run than bikes. So what?

 

I would like ALL vehicle users to pay at least some VED if any have to, regardless of emissions. I would like the roads to be maintained to a satisfactory standard as a result which would mean making it a road tax again.

You think this should include bikes.

I suppose a £0.01 should cover the amount of wear and tear that a bike does.

Then I'd like a 90% rebate on my car VED please since I'm choosing to use the bike, which is reducing damage, reducing congestion and reducing pollution.

 

 

Yes. Exactly.

Well, put me out of my misery. Should you pull over, or should I? Or is it something you think should only apply to cycles?

 

 

 

What I actually stated was this: "Car owners often want to reach their destination by travelling at the permissible speed limit, without unnecessary hold-ups such as when groups of cyclists refuse to drop back to single file, regardless of how much of a tailback they may be causing. Motorists pay a considerable premium to be on the highway and many probably see their commuting as having priority."

They're wrong though aren't they. A) they're not being delayed at all. B) They don't pay a premium, c) they most definitely don't have priority.

Wrong on so many counts it starts to make them look a little stupid if they have that opinion.

 

 

I agree. I note you've added a caveat now, though.

Only for clarity. But you agree, so why did you suggest otherwise before?

 

 

I remember a few instances well. All have taken place on busy rural roads where national speed limit applies.

Ah yes, for example the A57.

I too have had to slow down for a bike on a road sometimes.

You know what happens after that though... I speed up again. And then I reach a queue somewhere. End result of the cyclists being on the road. Nothing. My journey time is entirely unaltered.

 

 

I'm not sure that it is. I see, incompetent driving every time I'm out but it's far easier to detect speeding without active monitoring i.e. easy money for the treasury. A majority of the speeding I witness when driving is far from dangerous. 100% of the dangerous driving I witness is.

Incompetent and dangerous are quite different things. If you meant the legal definition of dangerous.

Speeding is far more common than dangerous driving.

Incompetent driving is unfortunately far too common.

 

 

Yes, they should but they'll never be gone hence why I said that cyclists are the most vulnerable re: crash protection. We don't live in a utopia. Only motorbikes are more hazardous to the owner.

That's victim blaming.

But we all agree that cyclists are more at risk from other traffic than motorists. That isn't a argument against targeting dangerous overtakers.

 

 

Far more cars on the road, cyclists not using car parking spaces in car parks etc.

Irrelevant. The fact is that your car is more likely to be damaged by another car than by a bike.

Good point about parking though. Every day I use my bike I leave 1 extra parking space available for someone else. Another reason I should be thanked.

 

 

It's not a legal requirement to remain behind them. It's not illegal to return to the left hand lane after occupying the right-hand lane. I's correct when no longer overtaking, nor turning right ahead. Also, it's not illegal to pass slower moving traffic to your right.

 

It is illegal to pass a vehicle on the inside, undertaking it. Unless in queueing traffic or that vehicle is turning right.

 

I thought that the law had been clarified on this recently, but perhaps I was mistaken.

 

"The Highway Code discourages undertaking on motorways with some exceptions (rule 268): "Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake". Undertaking is permitted in congested conditions when frequent lane changing is not recommended.[6] On other roads, the Code advises drivers "should only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right" (rule 163).[7] Rule 163 uses advisory wording and "will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted", but may be used in evidence to establishing liability in any court proceedings.[8] On all roads, undertaking is permitted if the vehicles in the lane to the right are queueing and slow moving.[citation needed] Undertaking in an aggressive or reckless manner could be considered Careless Driving or more seriously Dangerous Driving, both of which are legally enforceable offences."

 

None of those say "MUST NOT" which would suggest that it's not actually illegal unless it reaches the standard of careless.

 

 

The road traffic act uses undertaking as an example that might qualify for careless driving.

Examples of driving which may support an allegation of careless driving are:

 

1. Acts of driving caused by more than momentary inattention and where the safety of road users is affected, such as:

(i) overtaking on the inside;

[RootsBooster 24]

Muscle memory is the execution of a physical skill without conscious thought. Hopefully most competent drivers don't have to think "Oh, I must swerve to avoid the unexpected obstacle" before doing it.

Reflex speed determines how quickly they act, muscle memory determines what action they take.

 

Oh go on then, let's do it...

 

Muscle memory - The ability to reproduce a particular movement without conscious thought, acquired as a result of frequent repetition of that movement. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/muscle_memory

 

I would hope that nobody has frequent repetitions of having to swerve out of the way.

 

(Muscle) Reflex - An action that is performed without conscious thought as a response to a stimulus. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reflex

 

I never mentioned anything about reflex time.

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2016 at 14:13 ----------

 

I know there are zero-rated cars. We all know that there are other compulsary costs and regulations levied on running a motor vehicle, compared to using a bicycle.

 

The running costs of walking include shoes and fuel (food)

 

Running costs of cycling include tyres, various wearing components and fuel (food)

 

Running costs of a private jet or yacht...

It's all pretty proportional. I don't whine that I can't afford to run an aircraft carrier.

[willman 10]

Overtaking on the inside is a complex manouvre which requires you to pass on the inside AND pass back in front of the car you undertook.

Undertaking does need to do that.

[soopah 17]

I cycle a lot and the behaviour of a good proportion of my fellow cyclists enrages me. There's no excuse for swerving about all over the place looking at a mobile phone or jumping red lights and I see it almost every day.

 

The problem with this whole argument is that as much as people cycling irresponsibly irritates me or anyone else, they shouldn't be dying for it. Drivers need to allow for the inescapable fact that cyclists are vulnerable on the roads.

 

I think Strava has a lot to answer for too in regards to how some cyclists behave on the road, and off-road too.

I'm often cycling to work, but since the schools have gone back the amount of loonies on the road has massively increased. I too have cars that are in the highest VED bracket and my bikes cost more than most people's cars.

 

The fact of the matter is that cars are allowed to use the road by privilege. Cyclists, walkers and horses are using them as a right.

 

Again, the amount of trouble causers on both sides is small, but it only takes one lapse of judgement to kill someone. There's not much the cyclist can do to avoid a collision in many cases.

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2016 at 14:39 ----------

 

And there should be some way of enforcing a minimum standard of maintenance for using your bike on the road. No idea how you would enforce it. I see bikes so badly set up, rusty, flat tyres, making a horrible racket and the poor rider with their seat too low.

None of this makes an enjoyable experience.

 

Granted, this is usually on those supermarket BSO's instead of an actual bike.

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2016 at 14:44 ----------

 

If you join British Cycling, it costs £35 a year and you get liability insurance and discounts at various shops.

 

Easy way to shut up the "Cyclists don't pay insurance" crowd.

Next one is wear one of these

http://ipayroadtax.com/shop/

[Cyclone 10]

Oh go on then, let's do it...

 

Muscle memory - The ability to reproduce a particular movement without conscious thought, acquired as a result of frequent repetition of that movement. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/muscle_memory

 

I would hope that nobody has frequent repetitions of having to swerve out of the way.

 

(Muscle) Reflex - An action that is performed without conscious thought as a response to a stimulus. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reflex

 

I never mentioned anything about reflex time.

 

I shall concede the point, with the caveat that operating a car AT ALL is not a reflex action, it must be learned. So the reflex to swerve, relies on the muscle memory of how to steer a car.

[shims 10]

So, cars cost more to run than bikes. So what?

Much of the cost is not occupational. It is forced onto motor-vehicle owners. Cars go up the road, bikes go up the road. One set of commuters has to have pay a series of fees and meet various regulations, the other does not.

 

You think this should include bikes.

I suppose a £0.01 should cover the amount of wear and tear that a bike does.

Then I'd like a 90% rebate on my car VED please since I'm choosing to use the bike, which is reducing damage, reducing congestion and reducing pollution.

Well, put me out of my misery. Should you pull over, or should I? Or is it something you think should only apply to cycles?

You're a motorist who owns a bike. You use it for convenience and possibly cost. If you were massively concerned about congestion and reducing pollution you might elect to not own a car at all. This 'pull over' stuff you keep going on about is nonsense, by the way.

 

They're wrong though aren't they. A) they're not being delayed at all. B) They don't pay a premium, c) they most definitely don't have priority.

Wrong on so many counts it starts to make them look a little stupid if they have that opinion.

No they are not wrong about being delayed. As we both can see, it can depend on the circumstances. Hence your caveat. They pay premiums that are not applicable to cyclists. I didn't say they have priority. I said they may feel they do.

 

Only for clarity.

It was clear what you were stating - an absolute, where none exists.

 

But you agree, so why did you suggest otherwise before?

It's not always the case. We've agreed on this.

 

Ah yes, for example the A57.

I too have had to slow down for a bike on a road sometimes.

You know what happens after that though... I speed up again. And then I reach a queue somewhere. End result of the cyclists being on the road. Nothing. My journey time is entirely unaltered.

If a stretch of your commute is on a 60mph road for three miles and you drive at 60mph it will take you three minutes. If you drive on the same road at sixty for two miles and at 10mph for one a mile in the middle (because you are stuck behind a bunch of cyclists who won't drop to single file despite causing a tailback and regardless of what they are required to do according to the Highway Code) the same stretch of road will have taken eight minutes. If you tend to drive at the speed limit (conditions permitting) as many drivers seem to, you will reach you destination later. UNLESS you make up the time by speeding.

 

Incompetent and dangerous are quite different things. If you meant the legal definition of dangerous.

I was referring to drivers who will endanger you due to their incompetence. Or in some cases their disregard for other road users.

 

That's victim blaming.

I'm not blaming anyone for what they choose to travel in or on. Obviously a large sturdy vehicle is safer than a light, fragile one in the case of an impact. Not everyone drives or rides safely. They never will. It's a risk you have to bear in mind when making choices. Motor vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists would traverse different zones in a more ideal world.

 

Irrelevant. The fact is that your car is more likely to be damaged by another car than by a bike.

Not irrelevant: down to probability due to the disparity of numbers involved. Cyclists can and do damage cars. You seem to see situations as black and white with no grey area e.g. as always vs. never / legal vs. illegal. That may keep debates going around and around but is not necessarily accurate or likely.

 

This does seem to be getting increasing pedantic / purposeless.

[RootsBooster 24]

I shall concede the point, with the caveat that operating a car AT ALL is not a reflex action, it must be learned. So the reflex to swerve, relies on the muscle memory of how to steer a car.

 

Hahah, a little part of me does sometimes enjoy when we get this petty.

[soopah 17]

You know it's usually quicker to pass cyclists riding two abreast than in single file right?

Single file is meaningless, as most cyclists will take the lane if they feel tucking to the side will cause them to be in danger.