Cyclists

0
1 month ago (3:05 PM)
To join this discussion please register or log in

Comments:

MatthewBaynham

It's about death.

If a car hits a pedestrian it'll probably break a few bones and might kill you.

If a lorry hits a pedestrian it'll probably kill you.

If a cyclist hits you, then you'll get a few bruises and it very rarely results in the pedestrian breaking bones or being killed.

Anonymous

Forgive me if I have this wrong, but you appear to be saying that a motorised vehicle hitting a pedestrian may kill that pedestrian, but a cycle hitting a pedestrian will only bruise him, rarely breaking bones, so that's okay is it, forget the fact that the cyclist MAY have run a red, or cycled past vehicles stopped at a zebra crossing, you're only bruised, it could have been worse.

pukpuk

What if car or lorry hits cyclist because he didn't drive according to driveway code?

MatthewBaynham

If a cyclist gets hit by a lorry, it would be highly unlikely for that to result in the death of the person driving the lorry.

If a cyclist gets hit by a car, it would depend if it's a smart car or a full sized car.

Anonymous

If that was a reply to putpuk, I thought that he/she meant if the cyclist didn't conform to the Highway Code.

pukpuk

Yes. Driveway was supposed to be Highway :)

paulsw11

Some people are obsessed by cyclists from their armchairs and these old chestnuts appear time and time again. We know there is no such thing as road tax, so that's a naive question. The government turns a blind eye because the road deaths and injuries to the public are almost entirely caused by motor vehicles, so no point "sweating the small stuff". If you look at a bike there is nowhere to put a number plate that an ANPR system could see. Even if it could, we cannot afford an army of people or the ANPR cameras to deploy. In any event, what problem would you solve with registration. Cyclist don't kill or injure people.You can either ride a bike or you can't, so an exam isn't needed. As a car driver I know the Highway Code, so not sure what an exam would add, beyond perhaps how to repair a puncture or oil my chain.

Anonymous

Well I'm sitting on the sofa, but I'm certainly not obsessed with cyclists.
Sure, road tax morphed into VED, and I don't think that the government do turn a blind eye to road deaths, no matter how they're caused.
I don't study cycles, as I have little or no interest in them, and absolutely no desire to ride one, but I vaguely recall many moons ago, seeing cycles in Holland or Belgium, or possibly Germany, with a registration plate just below he saddle at the rear.
Maybe they had them once, but it's no longer a requirement, I don't know.
With modern technology I'm sure that ANPR cameras could pick out cycle plates, invaluable in a case like the one in 2007 I think, in Cornwall, where Peter Messen was sentenced to one year in jail for allegedly "cycling furiously" on the pavement, and killing 41 y.o. Gary Green, so much for cyclists not killing or injuring people.
Agreed, that is a rarity, but I personally witnessed some 7 or 8 years ago, a man riding a cycle on the pavement in the West End of London.
He turned left out of Great Marlborough St. into Regent St., and struck a young girl in the face with his handlebars, just near Hamleys Toy Store.
He didn't stop, but was chased and caught by the girl's father, who proceeded to "punch his lights out" until two passing policemen intervened.

MatthewBaynham

In the Netherlands cyclists do not need to have any number plate or license.

However bicycles with a additional motor on them do need a number plate if it take can them over 40kph.

hatler

Switzerland possibly ? They used to require that bicycles were registered, but when it became obvious that the scheme was a complete waste of time and cost far more to administer than any benefits realised, they abandoned it, around about 2010 I think.

Davidbussell

i ended up n hospital with two broken ribs when I was hit by a cyclist on the pavement. Is this injury enough for you?

Yankee28

I doubt if that will cut any ice with these intransigent guys David, you'll no doubt be castigated for having the temerity to be walking on the sidewalk, and getting in the way of a cyclist, exercising his God given right to ride wherever he wants.

Terry Vaughan

A bad experience David. But not in the same class as the motor vehicle accidents that kill quite a lot of people on the pavement, not just break their ribs. Lorry drivers recently killed 6 people and 4 people (those weren't on the pavement) in two separate incidents. The point is that whatever the rights and wrongs of your case, any scarce resources spent on bad cycling aren't being spent on dangerous driving, which is largely unregulated, and that is where the greatest problem is. Fix that before starting on the bikes. And if drivers become safer you won't see so many people cycling on the pavement.

Yankee28, the place that people want to cycle is on proper cycle tracks.

Yankee28

Perhaps they should try Herne Hill Velodrome.

Terry Vaughan

Yes, it's one of the few places where there is a track. But they'd have to cycle on the pavement to get there.

Yankee28

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose..............

HuwC

Bold statement " injuries to the public are almost entirely caused by motor vehicles"

As a safety professional it would be interesting to see if this is the case, or if the motor vehicle is not always the root cause. For example if a pedestrian steps into the path of an oncoming car without looking and despite the car breaking hard there is still an injury, what was the cause. The effect is clear but what was the cause?

Ditto, if a bike turns across a lane without looking and is involved in a collision what was the cause?

Think we have to accept the difference between cause and effect (or possibly fault and blame)

Yankee28

Colour me pedantic, but even at this late hour I find it difficult to contribute anything to a thread where a poster doesn't know the difference between breaking, and braking.

Davidbussell

16% of serious or fatal injuries to cyclist are caused by the cyclist and no other party is involved. This leaves 84 out of 100 have another party involved. Of those 84 43% is directly attributable to the cyclist, which is 36 people. If we add the 16 and the 36 we get 52% of serious or fatal injuries to cyclist is directly attributable to the cyclist.

Terry Vaughan

Deanoid, you must know that drivers frequently abuse traffic rules and regulations, almost always with impunity. You ought to know that they are to blame for the great majority of the accidents they are involved in. You might know that low emission vehicles are exempt from 'road tax'. You do know that the driving test doesn't stop bad driving. So why are you obsessed with bike riders, who do so little harm in comparison? It seems very odd to me. Let's fix the real problems before starting on fringe issues.

The point you overlook is that motor traffic is extremely damaging and needs to be minimised. Cycling is part of the solution, not part of the problem. It should be encouraged, not have obstacles put in the way. The way forward is to separate bikes from pedestrian and motor traffic. Then perhaps you might cycle yourself.

NickPretzel

I have been a keen cyclist since 1979 and use my bike almost exclusively to get around London. So I would like to reply to these questions and then add some observations of my own.
I agree about the abuse of traffic regulations. Cyclists can actually be fined for running red lights and, personally, I would like to see this enforced. I find it as discourteous, irritating, selfish and dangerous as anyone and it gives cyclists a bad reputation. However, it's their own lives that they're endangering, not that that's an excuse, but that's not the case for motor vehicles.

Theoretically, road tax is payed for the upkeep of our roads. Bicycles cause very little wear and tear, if any, so asking cyclists to pay such a tax would be grossly unfair. Furthermore, bicycles don't cause any damage to the environment nor do they consume any energy beyond the food that cyclists eat. The bicycle is one of the most efficient machines ever invented and are actually more efficient than walking, so if you wanted to tax cyclists on that basis you'd have to tax pedestrians too. Lastly, given the health, environmental and financial benefits of cycling, surely we should encourage it. A road tax would have the opposite effect.

While I wouldn't have any real objections to having bicycle registrations, I fear that it would be impractical, certainly as a means of identification. Having bicycles equipped with number plates would impact on their efficiency and would almost certainly be clumsy and possibly even hazardous if they were to be at all visible. I have never heard of a cyclist causing a fatality or serious injury, so I don't see any real need for registration. In any accident involving a cyclist, it is almost invariably the cyclist that comes off worst. Incidentally, of all the injuries I've sustained as a result of an accident, all but two were caused by pedestrians! Apart from the usual cuts and bruises I've suffered from broken ribs twice and a fractured shoulder blade. All of these were due to pedestrians stepping out in front of me and my going over the handlebars as a result of braking hard so as to avoid hitting the pedestrian. The only injury I've ever suffered as a result of a collision with a car was a broken ankle. Furthermore, in all of these accidents I was not the person at fault. Research has shown that mixing bicycles with pedestrians is far safer than mixing them with motor vehicles. While our provision for cyclists is improving, it still lags far behind many European cities (the only exception I know is Paris) and we need to do more than paint a stripe on a road. All too often these kind of cycle lanes are blocked by parked cars or ignored. The same goes for the cycle boxes found at many traffic lights. They are supposed to make it safer for cyclists to turn right and should be left clear by drivers, yet more often than not you'll find a car in them, defeating the object. It is actually an offence to do so, but I've never seen it enforced. One more thing that I've rarely seen enforced is motorists using their mobile phones while driving, something that endangers all road users. I witness this as often as cyclists running red lights and, of the two offences, I certainly think it's the more serious.

Finally, I think cycling proficiency courses are a good idea, if only to teach cyclists the hazards of the road, their rights and responsibilities. For example, cyclists are actually advised to ride one metre from the curb or any parked cars (to avoid the danger of car doors being opened in their path) and overtaking cars are supposed to give them a one metre berth. By far the great majority of motorists do so, but there are always the few who don't.

To sum up, I believe that all road users should respect one another and treat each other courteously. In my experience most do and I have no complaints. Unfortunately, there will always be a few who are reckless and selfish, drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. The thing to bear in mind is that of all of these, cyclists are by far the most vulnerable, so perhaps we should make some allowance for that. One final point about running lights is that as soon as a cyclist dismounts, they become a pedestrian. As we have no jay walking laws, this means that they wouldn't be breaking any laws even if they did run a light. It is tempting for cyclists to think of themselves as more akin to pedestrians than motor vehicles. Perhaps the solution is to introduce such a law.

Terry Vaughan

Nick, I also stop at red lights. But it doesn't bother me when others don't. It can be dangerous to stop. Firstly, because the driver behind may be intending to jump the red, and secondly because going through the red can get you out of the way of motor traffic. Treating a red light as a give way sign for bike riders is safer, and legal in places where there is less hostility. The primary purpose of traffic lights is to control motor traffic. For bike riders, who don't normally speed through or block junctions, light-controlled junctions are really no different from those without lights.

The problem with these proposals to tax, register and test bike riders is that they all discourage cycling while bringing little or no benefit. The one thing that does enable cycling is proper cycle tracks. Your accident history (and my own) demonstrates the need for them.

I find that most drivers are courteous, most of the time, but that just about all drivers ignore the Highway Code if following it would delay them, even just for a few seconds.

NickPretzel

I agree, Terry. I don't get upset when cyclists run a light, but I can understand why people do. What does upset me is reckless riding, but I was trying to point out that all road users are guilty of breaking the highway code. Another example is that drivers are supposed to give way to pedestrians when turning left at a junction that isn't controlled, but I rarely see them doing so. And I don't want to pretend that I'm lily white. I've run red lights and ridden on pavements. However, when I do, I give way to pedestrians and ride carefully.

I remember riding the wrong way down a one-way street in Amsterdam, having lost my way, and I was amazed when the oncoming traffic actually pulled over to let me pass. When I mentioned this to my Dutch friends they told that it was perfectly legal for me to do so and that cyclists have right of way at all times. It is also legal for cyclists to go through red lights when turning right, as long as they watch out for pedestrians (obviously that would be turning left in the UK). I have heard talk of introducing a similar law here. The red lights that I do occasionally run are most often left turns when no pedestrians are crossing. Either that, or they're pressure activated late at night when there is no traffic and the weight of a bicycle is insufficient to activate the lights. In Frankfurt they turn the traffic lights to flashing amber after midnight, a sensible idea to my mind. I also remember cycling into work, from Commercial Road to Oxford Circus, when there had been a power failure and none of the traffic lights were working. Curiously it was a much smoother ride than usual and I got the impression that all traffic flowed much more smoothly.

There's an interesting website in the states at www.humantransport.org by the NC (North Carolina) Coalition for Cycling which discusses and researches traffic calming and other cycling safety schemes. Some of it makes surprising reading, ie that many of these schemes introduce their own hazards. By far the best option is to have separate cycle lanes, as they've done around Stratford. It's the same in Berlin, where a section of the pavement is for cyclists. These are always differently paved, not just painted lines and are easily distinguishable. On top of that, major junctions and roundabouts have separate signals for cyclists. There you can be fined for cycling in the wrong cycle lane! (ie on the wrong side of the road, which I find a bit excessive. They do enforce these laws though, as several of my friends have had on the spot fines (of 30€)).

One final note: given that I've been cycling in London for nearly forty years I don't think four accidents that amounted to more than scrapes and bruises is too bad, at around one every ten years. Cycling in London is definitely getting safer and I don't ride as fast as I used to, so I hope that that average will improve.

Anyway, thank you for your comments. I wish you all safe cycling.

Terry Vaughan

Nick, that accident rate is completely unacceptable to most people! Pedestrians, drivers and public transport users would not put up with a significant injury every ten years, with more frequent scrapes and bruises. I don't cycle so much now, having decided it's too risky. Before that, I reckoned I could expect a careless driver to run into me about once a year, though not always resulting in a fall. And countless near misses, of course.

pukpuk

Do you realise that when the light is red on one street it is green on the other at the junction or for pedestrians?

Terry Vaughan

Really pukpuk? How is that relevant to the idea that a red light can be treated as a give way sign? 'Give way' means that other traffic has priority. That seems clear enough to me.

If lights are so important, how come most junctions don't have them?

pukpuk

Who told you red light means can be treated as give way?

Art. 176 of Highway Code
You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36

Terry Vaughan

Pukpuk, your obsession is becoming tiresome. Jumping the lights can be dangerous, of course. A prosecution of someone who did that and killed a person was reported in just the last day or so. It was a taxi driver who passed the red, and a young man on a bike who was killed. Red light jumping by bike riders, common as it is, is rarely the cause of an accident. It's motor vehicles that are dangerous. There is no equivalence between lawless driving and lawless cycling. Do try to understand that.

Many people cycle through red lights, because the junctions are not designed for cycle traffic. Waiting is not always necessary. There is a clue in the paragraph you quoted - if the lights are down, treat the junction as if it has no lights and proceed with great care. Going through is safer than waiting. In less backward countries, it's legal for people on bikes to treat the red as a give way sign, and there are fewer accidents because of it.

Yankee28

From how I read PukPuk's posts, he's just stating the law as it is, 'red light, everyone stop', and when he said people suddenly run in front of him, and he has to stop, I took that to mean both pedestrians and/or cyclists running in front of him.
Someone said that if he has to keep stopping, maybe he's doing something wrong, would it be right to not stop, and run into someone instead?
You SEEM to be of the opinion that it should be, 'everyone stop at red, but maybe not bikes', because, once again, in YOUR opinion junctions are not designed with bikes in mind.
Write your MP, suggest that the law be tweaked to accommodate bikes at junctions, doing what you want to do, irrespective of existing law is tantamount to anarchy.

Terry Vaughan

Yankee28, the law in this country is clear. All traffic except pedestrians must stop at red lights, and at ambers too. Anarchy already exists, in that many bike riders and even more drivers jump the lights. In the case of drivers, that causes a significant number of serious accidents, such as the one I mentioned, and contributes to congestion as well, but is so commonplace that it is taken for granted. In the case of bike riders, it very rarely causes an accident, but does lead to a foolish sense of outrage in some people. Although you have a point about the general principle that law should be obeyed (a principle that somehow applies to bike riders more than it does to motorists), you seem to have missed the fact that people cycling sometimes have to choose between complying with the law and being safe. Which would you choose?

As for other peoples' driving, I've been driving in London for many years, avoiding bikes with no problem at all.

Asylum Road

Come on Terry, "Anarchy already exists, in that many bike riders, and EVEN MORE drivers, already jump the lights!"
Sure, motorists DO jump red lights, but more than cyclists? Give me a break.
None of them are right to do it, but rash statements like that don't help your case.

Terry Vaughan

Asylum Road, it doesn't make any difference to my argument which group jumps the lights most. The accident statistics are clear. It's careless drivers that cause the great majority of incidents, and the most serious ones. Not bike riders or pedestrians. Jumping a red on a bike is safer than stopping, legal in some countries, and very rarely a danger to others. Light jumping by the rider is only a factor in a very small percentage of accidents involving bikes. So why do some people get so indignant when they see it?

Round my way there are not many bikes, but I see some stopping and some not. I see one or more cars pass the red just about every single time the lights change. It would be even more common, but only the drivers near the front of the queue are able to do it - as soon as one stops, the one behind has to. Surveys in other areas have shown that drivers are the worst offenders. They don't usually cross a junction mid-cycle like bike riders do, but speed up to get through as long after the light changes as they dare. Haven't you noticed that? Doesn't it count? And they do very often jump pedestrian lights mid-cycle.

Yankee28

Terry, I don't smoke, but I like a few vodkas on the weekend.
I haven't had a joint since mmm, the late sixties?, when they were virtually obligatory.
But if you seriously believe that as many, or more, vehicles run red lights than cycles do, then I'd like to take a toke at whatever you're smoking.
Let me add, NO ONE should do it, but car drivers probably think of flashing a camera, so will more than likely stop.
Cyclists have no fear of cameras, even if they tripped one, what would it show, a nonchalant prat in a helmet, merrily on his way to the next red light.

Terry Vaughan

Yankee28, just watch for yourself what happens when the lights change. The relative numbers depend on the location. Where there are more bikes there will be more light jumpers.

You say that no-one should jump the lights. Does that apply to you?

Yankee28

Yes, did you seriously expect I'd say no?
Wait, you weren't behind me at the light at the corner of Cortez and Deltona Boulevards in Spring Hill FL. in July 2002 were you?
I had the fireworks for a Fourth of July party, and I was late.
As a rule I always stop.

Terry Vaughan

Yankee28, I don't know if you have driven, cycled or walked in London. If you have, you will have seen many drivers, many bike riders and many pedestrians cross against the amber or red light. It's probably similar wherever you are. What you notice depends on what you look for and where you are. If there are many bikes, you will see more of them going through. Where I live, there are far more drivers doing so than bike riders. A little off-topic, but when you drive, do you ever exceed the speed limit? Because if not, you may be the only driver in the world who doesn't.

What it comes down to is this: A large proportion of road users are lawless; there is very little enforcement action; motorists, as a group, are more lawless than bike riders; most accidents on the roads are due to careless driving; cycling transgressions are often committed for safety reasons; and cycling transgressions are the ones that cause most outrage.

hatler

I'll limit this post to just addressing the point about the numbers jumping red lights. Most other aspects of this discussion have been covered pretty well. Bottom line, attention should be directed at the thing that causes the most grief, and that is pretty much indisputably not cyclists (except in the minds of those who believe there is a 'war on motorists').

On three occasions I have sat by a busy junction in London for about an hour and counted the number of motorised vehicles and cyclists that have jumped a red light, then worked out the proportion of motorists and cyclists who jumped the light as compared to the number of motorists and cyclists who **could** have jumped the red light. On all three occasions the proportion of motorists slightly exceeded the proportion of cyclists, but not enough to be statistically significant I believe.

(For the purposes of this count I considered that all cyclists could potentially jump the lights as they are able to get to the front of the traffic queue. However, only the cars that did jump a red light and the first car that stopped were counted as potential red light jumpers. Once one car has stopped, further drivers are prevented from jumping the lights.)

pukpuk

"If lights are so important, how come most junctions don't have them?".

Where there are no lights you follow other rules, like stop or give way, turning left first, car on the right first. Do you follow these rules? Do you know them?

When the light is red you must stop and wait. Didn't you notice cars waiting patiently or impatiently but still waiting for the green light at a pelican/toucan crossings when no one is crossing the road? Or at empty junctions? Rule is rule and tickets are expensive.

Terry Vaughan

"Where there are no lights you follow other rules, like stop or give way"

Come on, pukpuk. That's my point. At junctions without lights, you follow other rules, like stop or give way. Light-controlled junctions work better if bike riders follow those rules instead of waiting at the light at the risk of getting run down. That's why the equivalent of turning left through the red is allowed in some countries.

Perhaps you are imagining people cycling across a junction without checking that the way is clear. The only people who do that are amber-gamblers (and red-gamblers). Motorists, and I dare say bike riders too, who see the light change and think they have time to rush through.

If you think it's dangerous for bike riders to treat the red light as a give way sign, do you have any evidence that backs you up? Or do you just think it's vital that bike riders comply with the letter of the law even if it puts them in danger? In that case, it would be nice if you said something about lawless motorists. Just to put your views in context.

As for drivers waiting at pedestrian crossing lights when no-one is crossing, yes, I've seen that. I haven't counted, but about as often as I see them ignoring the lights. I agree that not many go through empty junctions in the way that bike riders often do. Not yet, but they will.

NickPretzel

Yes, of course. I almost always stop at red lights. The one exception is a light at the end of a cycle path coming out of London Fields, crossing into Wells Street. This is always a badly synchronized so that when the light to cross Mare Street is green, the left turn filter is always red. This filter is a pedestrian light and I always give them right of way.

Asylum Road

Nick, I'd like to comment on a few things in your post, quite a few in your, and other cyclists favour, but the one line that stuck out, was your assertion that you'd never heard of a cyclist causing death or serious injury.
Another contributor has already mentioned the death of a pedestrian in Cornwall in 2007.
I googled this to check, and sure enough, a Peter Messen, 28, quoted by the judge as "cycling furiously", killed Gary Green 41, while he, (Messen), was cycling on the pavement.
He was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, suspended for two years.
So just because you were unaware of it, it doesn't mean that something never happened, but I appreciate that you weren't being negligent with the verité when you wrote it.

Terry Vaughan

Asylum Road, bad as that incident was, it wasn't necessary for the culprit's bike to be registered for him to be caught and punished. He may have been injured himself, as usually happens when a bike is in a collision. And he knew very well that cycling furiously on the pavement is not a good idea, so a proficiency test would not have prevented it.

People are more likely to be killed by lightning than by someone on a bike. Meanwhile, drivers kill significant numbers of pedestrians, on the pavement, every year. What this tells me is that motor vehicles need regulation but bikes don't. Not because they never do any harm, but because cycling is on balance a good thing that should not be discouraged by restrictions unless they are really necessary.

Asylum Road

Terry, I didn't post in an effort to seek bicycle registration, although I DO agree with it, I was simply replying to Nick Pretzel, who posted that he was unaware of a cyclist causing death or injury.

Terry Vaughan

Asylum Road, greater regulation of cycling is the subject of the original post. I don't think the case has been made.

Asylum Road

Terry, in a free and democratic society, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and also the right to express it.
You don't think that the case has been made for greater regulation of cycling, that is your opinion, and I respect it.
It is my opinion that it IS needed, because of the actions of admittedly a minority of scofflaw cyclists, who bring the law abiding majority of cyclists into disrepute.
I'm not a vigilante,who advocates hanging errant cyclists from lamp standards.
I think that the police and TFL, should give a fair advance warning, that in X amount of months, they will commence a blitz on cycle related offences, at the most dangerous, black-spot accident areas and junctions in London, where they'll issue warnings for a first offence, graduating to a small, perhaps £25 to £50 fine for a second, culminating in a £500 fine, and possible confiscation of the cycle for a third offence.
Of course, while they are doing that, they could be cautioning, and possibly prosecuting the drivers of any vehicles who are breaking the law too.

Terry Vaughan

Asylum Road, the trouble is that they can't do both. The number of motorists speeding, phoning, jumping the lights, parking illegally, overtaking dangerously, driving uninsured, with poor eyesight, in overloaded or defective vehicles etc, is very high. I have no objection to them dealing with dangerous cycling, but people cycling are just not as dangerous as motorists. It's a matter of resources and priorities. Motorists do all those things usually with impunity. Even in your comment, driving offences are just tacked on the end. They are often less visible, but do you see them as less important?

Anonymous

Terry, I'm unsure what you mean when you say that "they can't do both", I'm hoping that you don't mean that they can't ticket cyclists, and vehicle drivers at the same time, which doesn't seem right.
That's like saying that two convenience stores are being robbed at the same time, diagonally opposite each other, and the cops, unsure of how to proceed, go after the guys robbing the nearest one, and let the other shop get robbed.

Terry Vaughan

Frank, police resources are far too thin to deal with motoring offences. Almost all are ignored. So of course they can't deal with cycling offences at the same time. It's not even one or the other - both are beyond the current police service. They do occasionally have a short blitz on bike riders because of local politics, but barely even attempt to deal with drivers. There are just too many offenders. They would be stopping one motorist for speeding while others fly past on their phones. Motoring offences are so commonplace they are taken for granted. And politics often prevents action too (the 'war on the motorist').

NickPretzel

Would you advocate similar penalties for drivers? Given the far greater danger that cars pose, the fines should be correspondingly higher, surely? I'm fairly certain that a proposal to confiscate people's vehicles for a third offence would evoke massive protests and be considered draconian.

Considering the relative dangers posed by bad cyclists as opposed to bad drivers I have to say that I find some of these proposals somewhat disproportionate. The real solution, surely, is for better provision for cyclists and greater investment.

Asylum Road

Terry, I didn't post in an effort to seek bicycle registration, although I DO agree with it, I was simply replying to Nick Pretzel, who posted that he was unaware of a cyclist causing death or injury.

Pages

Showing 1-50 of 85 comments