You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The latest wheeze from the Tories.
Mark Harper has promised to change the law so that dangerous cyclists face the same punishments as dangerous drivers.
Mr Harper said: “Dangerous cyclists who kill or seriously injure others should face the same penalties as other road users. Today I have agreed a way forward to ensure the Criminal Justice Bill contains powers to hold irresponsible cyclists to account, paving the way for even safer streets.
So, let me get this right, riding recklessly on something that weighs 15kg and exposes the rider to significant injury will be treated exactly the same way as a driver in safety controlling something that weighs 100 times as much.
FFS.
And exactly what proportin of drivers that kill get that sentence? Or even a custodial sentence for that matter.
Just more culture war red meat for the gammons, I suspect they'll be turfed out before they get it through parliament.
Ignore it, it's just more culture war bollocks
I'm with Spin - it's yet more bollocks intended to grab a few headlines.
Spin has the salient point.
Sweepstake on the GE? I reckon October.
Had a **** in a Golf overtake me just after I indicated to turn right, outside my house, in a quiet village, but yeah, it's cyclists we need to worry about.
You’d almost imagine it’s cyclists that kill five people a day in the UK, and injure many more.
Anyway, @spin has it.
There was something about making sure bikes are roadworthy which will be totally unenforceable if they can’t catch the 1m uninsured/unlicensed drivers.
Spin has a point, which I agree with, but to go against the consensus here, if someone does something dangerous which endangers other people shouldn't the penalty be the same regardless of how they were endangering those other people? The penalty for doing it in a lorry is the same as in a car or on a motorbike, but a lorry is more dangerous than a motorbike in the same way that a car is more dangerous than a bike, its the fact that people were endangered which is the salient point.
And I would put injuring someone on an illegally modified ebike in the same category as injuring someone with a car which has failed it's MOT, neither should have been out on the road and the rider/driver should be punished accordingly. Yes, the modified ebike is less likely to cause an injury in a collision as it's smaller, and much harder to detect than an MOT failure showing up on ANPR, but if it does cause an injury the intent was the same so the punishment should be too
This is such bullshit, hopefully won't make it to actual law. Amusingly I have met Mark Harper while out on the bike, he walks his dogs near the Beaver area/Pludds trails in the FoD
Spin has a point, which I agree with, but to go against the consensus here, if someone does something dangerous which endangers other people shouldn’t the penalty be the same regardless of how they were endangering those other people? The penalty for doing it in a lorry is the same as in a car or on a motorbike, but a lorry is more dangerous than a motorbike in the same way that a car is more dangerous than a bike, its the fact that people were endangered which is the salient point.
the RANGE of penalties open to the court would be the same regardless of driving a lorry, a car or a motorbike. The actual sentence will take into account the circumstances and a lorry driver may be more likely to face a harsher punishment because of the obviously greater risk and because professional drivers are expected to behave better. It’s virtually unheard of for people to be sentenced at the previous maximum 14 years, never mind the new max life. You would really have had to set out to cause harm or have multiple agitating factors to even get into the consideration for that. Its almost impossible to imagine a circumstance where a cyclist could somehow achieve anything close to the maximum sentence - bear in mind that Parliament sets the range of sentences but judges act independently of government to determine the appropriate sentence. Currently anyone who met the standard would be very likely to be prosecuted for manslaughter and could be imprisoned for life (theoretically) anyway.
as everyone knows the evidential burden for bringing a prosecution against drivers is quite high. If anything the burden will be higher against cyclists. It’s difficult to get too upset about it, but it’s unlikely to be a priority for the statute book before the election. Of course Starmer hasn’t really set out his stall on what nonsense he will ditch or allow to quietly wither. As a former DPP he’ll not be losing sleep over the inability jail cyclists for life, he may not have the balls to say that and lose some daily mail voters.
The danger with this is that it opens (wider) the door for a political war on bicycle users for the pleasing of the rabid gammons. Knee jerk legislation is rarely good legislation. License plates, helmet compulsion, mandatory cycle path use they'll all keep getting dragged up and wasting parliamentary time in the face of much more pressing issues.
Even if they go nowhere they'll keep getting dragged up at every opportunity as the metaphorical dead cats and they'll be a distraction from fixing our national car dependency/addiction and utterly embarrassing driving standards and me first attitude (the ones driving 5 deaths a day).
For the small volume of cyclist induced deaths a year there are existing alternatives (and we've seen them used in a couple of high profile cases in the last decade or so).
So, let me get this right, riding recklessly on something that weighs 15kg and exposes the rider to significant injury will be treated exactly the same way as a driver in safety controlling something that weighs 100 times as much.
Not sure what point your making there,
I read that if you kill somone whilst riding a bike the same laws should apply if you kill someone whilst in a car. That sounds logical to me
Cyclists who kill people face life in prison, the Transport Secretary has announced.
Mark Harper has promised to change the law so that dangerous cyclists face the same punishments as dangerous drivers.
I read that if you kill somone whilst riding a bike the same laws should apply if you kill someone whilst in a car. That sounds logical to me
The problem is that in the very rare (2-3 times a year at most) cases where a cyclist kills a pedestrian it's usually very murky as to who's really at fault (as in the Regent's Park case and the well-known Charlie Alliston case, the pedestrian stepped straight into the path of the riders) and the cyclist almost invariably gets way more jail time than any killer driver ever does.
The media is full of stories of drivers killing people "in accidents" and then getting off with suspended sentences, fines, points and sometimes not even that.
Ignoring the clickbsit and inaccurate thread title 😉
Reckless cyclists should be held accountable, but I'm sure it's possible to do so under current legislation.
This is potentially the thin end of the wedge for legislating against cycling though. The next "logical" step is compulsory insurance.
the trouble here is in court drivers have "there but for the grace of God go I" "protecting" them not so much for a cyclist.
And I would put injuring someone on an illegally modified ebike in the same category
Assuming you mean one which can do 30mph or similar then any "cyclist" law unless badly written wouldnt apply anyway.
They are motorbikes and hence the laws applicable to motorbikes would apply.
Chris Boardman was on BBC breakfast news this morning. He made it clear in the nicest possible way that this is a waste of time, as we need more people on bikes and not fewer. He also said that more people get killed in lightening strikes or by cows per year, than cyclists.
Just about to take my elderly mother out who will no doubt ask me my opinion (she's not a fan of people who cycle). This thread will come in handy.
Easy to set up a stop on a bike path and run checks. We had it in Edinburgh a few years back looking for lighting and berating the non helmet wearers. A PITA, but if repeated with sanctions, rather worrying.
Every day another petty culture war initiative.
Just listened to Chris Boardman on Radio 4
Stats 3 people killed by bike in a year, more chance of being killed by lightning or cows. 30,000 by vehicles !
We all know it's perfectly fine to murder someone in a car - you'll get a slap on the wrists.
What has there been, a couple of deaths in the last few years caused by idiot cyclists.
Just how many people have driver's killed 'yesterday' alone !
if you kill somone whilst riding a bike the same laws should apply if you kill someone whilst in a car. That sounds logical to me
Me too. The stats make don't really matter; so what if motor vehicles kill 5 a day and cyclists 1 in, what, 5 years? The only thing that keeps it's fair is whether the law is evenly enforced so that the greater risk of prison is on motorists.
Not all cyclists are STW good sorts, some tools out there ride like cocks so if, in doing so, they killed someone then punishment should match. Shirley?
EDIT: And if stops the Gammon bleating about cyclists "getting away with murder" then even better.
All fits in with the "ban it harder" lawmaking as a headline grabber.
Basically take something which there is already a law applicable which gives sensible penalties and create a new law for a specific purpose with harsher penalties.
They've done it with:
new bill that will make the “abduction” of a pet cat or dog punishable by up to five years in prison
"criminal damage to memorials”, punishable by up to ten years in prison
Apparently Labour is getting in on it too - considering a new offence of “fraud against the public purse”
Banning stuff is cheap, actually enforcing existing laws requires sustained investment over time.
This government and their backbenchers can't abide the idea of their Hedge-fund managing donor class paying tax, or a sane trading relationship with the EU to boost the economy so we get option A.
The Police are constantly being given new 'powers' when what they actually want is more resources and to be able to pay their experienced officers better so that they stay in the force.
Not all cyclists are STW good sorts, some tools out there ride like cocks so if, in doing so, they killed someone then punishment should match. Shirley?
And if we take the recent headline case the punishment currently does. A driver killing a pedestrian who stepped out in front of them wouldnt bother the headlines unless the car was doing something like 100 in a 30 zone.
All fits in with the “ban it harder” lawmaking as a headline grabber.
Unless its a law regarding drivers in which case the headline is "wahhhhh war on motorists".
They’re doing a phone-in on five live about this at the moment
Suffice to say that this has hit the intended target market perfectly for Rishi and Co. There’s been a steady succession of bitter, moaning old giffers droning on and on about cyclists not paying road tax, not having insurance and jumping red lights 🙄
The BBC News website also mentions paedophiles and people who sexually abuse dead people within the same article about 'dangerous cyclists'.
Really nice to group the three together.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016715
berating the non helmet wearers.
And they'd have been 'politely' told to FO by me.
Is this going to be a "death by ......." law only, or a "cycling without due care and attention"?
The former I couldn't care less about, existing laws are more than sufficient it seems to give the few cyclists it applies to far longer sentences than similar drivers already.
The latter would be a worry as it's a matter of interpretation. No team timetrials, bit'n'bit, chaingangs or pacelines on solid center markings? Eating and drinking on the move? Clubruns are going to be a nightmare if drafting was treated the same as tailgating, and people who can't get out the saddle smoothly without dropping back half a wheel in the group got treated like brake checking.
Yes it covers careless cycling - 5 years in prison....
27C Causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling
A person who causes the death of another person by riding a cycle on
a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without
reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is
guilty of an offence.”
I'm waiting for Iain Duncan Smith to have a photo-op in a church car park where he's measuring the speed of Range Rovers...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqvnvpxejv8o
Imagine the absolute outcry if this had been a cyclist instead of a Range Rover.
Sir Chris Boardman putting things nicely into perspective, once again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0hyb4h7
Clubruns are going to be a nightmare if drafting was treated the same as tailgating,
Ignored?
A driver killing a pedestrian who stepped out in front of them wouldnt bother the headlines unless the car was doing something like 100 in a 30 zone.
Because unless there is excessive speed tbe driver hasn't broken the law, as with cyclists.
When I'm driving I don't worry about the interpretation element of driving without due care, so why should I worry about it when riding?
Dangerous driving and Dangerous cycling are obviously both wrong but equally obviously not equivalent in terms of risk and impact.
What about new laws for Dangerous walking, Waking without due care and Attention, etc....
It's almost amusing to see which straws the Government are trying to grasp to look strong on law and order whilst they simultaneously delay court cases and increase early releases.
the pedestrian stepped straight into the path of the riders) and the cyclist almost invariably gets way more jail time than any killer driver ever does.
You shouldn't be riding fast enough to kill someone around pedestrians. That's the reckless part. I once nearly hit an old lady when I was going a fair old lick on a downhill cyclepath, due to her doing something I didn't expect. She could very easily have died. It was 100% my fault I was being a dick. Had that happened, should I have got a softer punishment than someone who was being a dick in a car?
Dangerous driving and Dangerous cycling are obviously both wrong but equally obviously not equivalent in terms of risk and impact.
Death by dangerous cycling or driving are equivalent in impact - someone dies. Clearly, killing someone is less likely on a bike but if you hit someone and they don't die you won't get done for death by dangerous cycling will you?
Dangerous cycling and dangerous driving aren't equivalent, in risk of course, but I suspect the penalties aren't currently equivalent. I think it's called 'furious cycling' though.
If a cyclist rides recklessly and kills or seriously injured someone because of that then they should face the same penalty * as if they had been driving a car. The object they use to cause such death or injury is imo irrelevant. If I beat someone to death with a tennis bat, I’d be treated no differently than if I shot them with a gun as the result is the same. Obviously it’s far more likely that you’ll kill someone in a car than on a bike however
* most likely a slap on wrist and suspended sentence
You shouldn’t be riding fast enough to kill someone around pedestrians. That’s the reckless part.
Define around pedestrians? On a shared path or cycling along a road when a pedestrian decides to step out in front?
A cursory look shows the attitude towards cyclists is far more extreme. If a pedestrian steps unexpectedly in front of a car it would be unlikely to make the headlines yet with cyclists we have IDS and the heil using it as part of their crusade against cyclists.
Cant find the quote right now but even had the IDS going on about illegally fast ebikes without being bright enough to notice if they are illegal then laws aimed at cyclists wouldnt apply to them.
I'm very dubious about the reason for bringing in this law though I'm happy to abide by it. If I kill or injure someone whilst riding my bike and it's my fault and I see no reason why I shouldn't be judged in the same way as anyone else causing death or injury. Bear in mind manslaughter has the same sentencing guidelines as dangerous driving (and now dangerous cycling). Frankly I would scrap the "death by...." laws altogether and simply apply one common manslaughter law.
Anyway, if you don't drive or ride recklesly or dangerously you aren't going to have a problem are you?
What would make it your fault though? No reflectors on your pedals? Hands not covering the brakes? Travelling at 25mph in a 20 zone with no means of knowing your exact speed? This law needs some proper scrutiny.
Define around pedestrians? On a shared path or cycling along a road when a pedestrian decides to step out in front?
Yeah probably. You should be aware that a pedestrian could walk out in front of you so yes, slow down or give a wider berth when there are peds within the kind of distance you could hit them. Clearly if they are on the other side of the road as you draw level they aren't going to be physically able to intersect with your path, but if they are walking along near the kerb and you are 0.5m away then they could.
I think Land Rovers should be banned - they seem to have been in the press recently (including this week) for crashing into Schools and killing kids, including a baby in a church car park. Where is the outcry ?
Yeah probably. You should be aware that a pedestrian could walk out in front of you so yes, slow down or give a wider berth when there are peds within the kind of distance you could hit them. Clearly if they are on the other side of the road as you draw level they aren’t going to be physically able to intersect with your path, but if they are walking along near the kerb and you are 0.5m away then they could.
Another good argument for adopting a proper primary position.
I think Land Rovers should be banned – they seem to have been in the press recently (including this week) for crashing into Schools and killing kids, including a baby in a church car park. Where is the outcry ?
Presumably there have been court cases? What were the outcomes?
What would make it your fault though? No reflectors on your pedals? Hands not covering the brakes? Travelling at 25mph in a 20 zone with no means of knowing your exact speed? This law needs some proper scrutiny.
No idea. Presumably that would need to be tested in court. Are there rigid guidelines defining reckless or dangerous driving? But... I guess what would make it "your fault" is if you ride into someone and it isn't their fault (e.g. they didn't step out in front of you). IANAL.
Anyway, if you don’t drive or ride recklesly or dangerously you aren’t going to have a problem are you?
The problem will be if the CPS & the jury interpret the actions of the cyclist unduly harshly & in a way they wouldn’t with a car driver.
should I have got a softer punishment than someone who was being a dick in a car?
Yes.
You need both licencing and training to drive a car, why? Becasue they are inherently dangerous, without training and being able to demonstrate understanding of road signs and proper handling you are going to either kill yourself or another road user or a pedestrian. End of discussion. Dos the law expect the same level of training and licencing for cyclists? No. Why? Because the vast vast vast amount of accidents involving a pedestrian and cyclist are going to be bruising or cuts at worst and for he infinitesimally small number of occasions when it's not, can be decided on an individual basis, and with the expectation that in most cases it won't be fatal, and that you'd need to be either supremely unlucky or reckless to kill some-one unlike car users for whom causing the death of others has become so normalised that there is a standard punishment tariff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv26j5n5wj3o
Shoe horning on one of hundreds of examples but if you can be drunk and coked up and be out after 3 years for good behaviour it's barely worth worrying about the sentence even if you did ever kill someone
You should be aware that a pedestrian could walk out in front of you so yes, slow down or give a wider berth when there are peds within the kind of distance you could hit them
Ok, so we have covered walk out but what if they run out? As has happened to me. Luckily it was light and I had enough of a view of them to be dubious about their actions but at night it would have been a tad more iffy.
Going back to using same standards for cars as for cyclists. What do you think would happen to the driver in that case? Would it get anything beyond local news and no charge since the pedestrian was blamed.
https://twitter.com/TitsyTheDwarf/status/1791080863825797612?t=Ap3majnVwEOzaEAe89jYdw&s=19
A few quick examples of driver vs cyclist sentences....
^ those above examples
did the illegality of the car have any bearing on the accident? Ie had (for example) the car failed its mot due to its engine light being on rather than its brakes being defective?
either way, driving sentences tend to be ridiculously lenient.
Ok, so we have covered walk out but what if they run out?
This is the case for driving cars as well. Someone can run straight out in front of you and you can't do anything about it - I've seen this happen - or you could be looking at your phone and mow someone down when you should have been paying attention.
Sir Chris Boardman putting things nicely into perspective, once again.
I always call him SIR Chris even though he's not. Why not is a mystery. Maybe he's been offered a Knighthood and politely declined.
But on a serious note - Boardman's mother was killed by a driver who was on his phone and distracted when she fell from her bike. Male driver got 30 weeks in prison (I've no idea how much of that time was actually spent in custody). So this nonsense regarding cyclists murdering pedestrians must really wear his patience.
did the illegality of the car have any bearing on the accident? Ie had (for example) the car failed its mot due to its engine light being on rather than its brakes being defective?
I’m not that convinced that Charlie Alliston would not have attempted to swerve around Kim Briggs when she stepped into the road, even had he not removed the front brake from his bike.
I think there’s a common view that living with having killed someone is probably more than enough punishment for many drivers, with dangerously careless driving commonly normalised. Cyclists are also commonly considered a menace; only last week I had the misfortune of a conversation in Cambridge (of all places) with someone who genuinely saw Auriol Grey as the victim and Celia Ward as an aggressor whose family cynically played her status in society for sympathy.
This is the case for driving cars as well
I know which is the problem with your initial statement about cyclists shouldnt go fast enough to kill someone. It holds up in some cases eg shared paths but not in others. In the former though you have the bonus of when people are sensible and use the road instead you then get the anti cyclist mob ranting about cyclists not using "cycle paths" and demanding a law be passed to make them do so.
Going back to the proposed law if we take the most recent case the police could have charged with careless or dangerous cycling. That they didnt do so suggests this new law wouldnt have been applied either unless they have lower standards for "death by" vs the basic offence.
Great idea. How can anyone object. If you kill or seriously injure someone by your stupidity then you should pay. My only objection is that death should mean life. Real life.
If, as people are saying, few people are killed by cyclists then there is nowt to worry about., Comparison with motorists is stupid and purely a red herring .
Comparison with motorists is stupid and purely a red herring .
It isn't, it's the absolute crux of the whole discussion!
1700 people a year are killed on Britain's roads, 5 people per day. The overwhelming majority by cars. That includes pedestrians on the pavement, it includes cyclists in so-called cycle lanes. If that kind of carnage was happening on any other transport system, it'd be shut down instantly.
And the majority of those drivers never see the inside of a jail cell. Suspended sentences, fines, points, maybe a short driving ban...
And now that a single person has been killed by a cyclist, there are calls for 14-year jail terms.
That's what people are arguing about. This whole "let's treat killer cyclists the same way as drivers" - hell if it means a slap on the wrist and a small fine, there'd be no objection!
The objection is once again that cyclists are being demonised while motorists, killing 5 people per day...well that problem is being ignored.
Great idea. How can anyone object. If you kill or seriously injure someone by your stupidity then you should pay. My only objection is that death should mean life. Real life.
If, as people are saying, few people are killed by cyclists then there is nowt to worry about., Comparison with motorists is stupid and purely a red herring .
commonsenseinnit.
.
The implication in this article is that the cyclist was at fault, but nothing was investigated, yet the woman who died was yet again crossing the road presumably onto the path of the cyclist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr7rkgrpldo
Your presumption?
Great idea. How can anyone object. If you kill or seriously injure someone by your stupidity then you should pay. My only objection is that death should mean life. Real life.
Yep, everything is always so black and white isn't it. Look how many dangerous drivers (driver doing things deliberately - speeding, overtaking inappropriately, using phone etc,.) are not actually prosecuted for dangerous driving but seem to mostly get away with careless driving.
As a cyclist how would it be proved that I was dangerously cycling rather than just being careless?
Is cycling at 24mph in a 20mph zone (which I wouldn't know as don't have a speedo) dangerous or careless, if you were driving at 24mph in a 20mph is that dangerous and if you killed someone would you be prosecuted for dangerous driving because of your speed - I am going to say no you wouldn't.
Telegraph banner is a beauty! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4ry74dkejo
'52mph in a 20mph zone - Lycra lout cyclists creating death traps all over Britain'
And even better - the picture is of a mountain bike. Good effort by that cyclist I say 😂
Culture war pricks.
Another cyclist killed in Manchester yesterday (Salford). No National outcry and not even in local news
if you were driving at 24mph in a 20mph is that dangerous and if you killed someone would you be prosecuted for dangerous driving because of your speed – I am going to say no you wouldn’t.
Rational thinking has gone out of the window here. I think you would end up in prison.
Just look what happened to the Just Stop Oil protesters. It's become political and part of the culture war.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/15/just-stop-oil-activist-is-first-to-be-jailed-under-new-uk-protest-law
If the thread title was "Dangerous drivers face life in prison" (leaving aside the fact that the max sentence wasn't life) this wouldn't be a thread, we'd all be behind it.
Whether the new legislation is needed on top of existing laws is a separate issue, but dangerous people need punishing whether they are in a car or on a bike. We either have principles about equality or we don't.
And while we can all point to cases where drivers have escaped jail after killing someone, there's plenty where they do get jail. The cycling media tends only to report the former. Culture wars work both ways. Take a step back and don't get sucked in by either side.
All this hand wringing over a stupid clickbait law.
People are homeless.
Child poverty increasing.
The health services are collapsing.
Kids are killing each other.
Car drivers get away with aggressive and dangerous behavior.
The best thing that the Tory turkey can do is legislate for something that will get them some kudos amongst the drooling idiots who support them.
I despair!
’52mph in a 20mph zone – Lycra lout cyclists creating death traps all over Britain’
I just had a look a couple of segments along the London Embankment. Some impressive efforts there! Strava up to its tricks though - i.e. average speed greater than maximum speed!
’52mph in a 20mph zone – Lycra lout cyclists creating death traps all over Britain’
If you ignore the actual article itself
*122k people using that section of cycleway
*35 clubs using Richmand Park as a "Velodrome"
Can we use that to argue for better facilities? That's 6x more cyclists on that stretch than licensed black cabs in London.
I just had a look a couple of segments along the London Embankment. Some impressive efforts there!
Many years ago, there was a whole load of noise on social media, later picked up by the Telegraph etc when cabbies first discovered that Strava exists and they cherry picked a few segments as an indication of how lawless we all were. Unfortunately, all the speeds came from pro riders on the Tour of Britain or RideLondon or the Olympics.
They'd just looked for the highest recorded speed, screenshot the top ten and posted it without thinking why they were all on the same date or doing any research into who the riders were or even taking a second to think "I've never seen anyone doing 40mph down the Strand, is this correct..." 😂
Absolute classic case of having "data" but no clue as to what it's showing or how to critically think about it.
"Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving"
What might constitute death by "inconsiderate" driving or cycling?
These lawyers have an answer (and examples), although it's for the general "without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration" rather than the "death by":
(b) Inconsiderate Driving (driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place)
The test for inconsiderate driving is much simpler: if your driving can be said to “inconvenience” other road users, you are likely to be convicted for inconsiderate driving.
Havent you heard all the big houses are full
Mark Harper, or IDS (Or any of the other legislators who back this) are hereby invited to accompany me on any time f my nightly dog walks, so that they can see where the real danger is.
Tonight, whilst waiting to cross the road, a car pulled out of the road opposite, without really checking, so did see or hear the motorbike approaching at a frightening speed. The motorbike swerved, accelerated to overtake the car, pulling a wheelie ats they did so, then accelerated off around the corner.
Whilst this was happening, another car, merrily drove along the pavement behind me, to get from it's parking space on the verge, by the owners garden fence, to the nearest point where the kerb is low enough to access the road - 100 yards away - because parking on the road, a whole 20 feet from their fence is just too much to ask.
Now, given a slightly less fortuitous situation, my dog and I, standing patiently, waiting to cross the road, and making required observations, would have been at the centre of a very nasty 3 vehicle pileup.
When the coast was clear, I crossed the road, then waited to cross a side road, as I don't trust that anybody is up with HWC yet (it's only been a little under 28 months), to observe a car turning In and missing the corner quite badly - because they were steering with one hand whilst holding their phone in the other.
All of this in the space of about 2 minutes, in a residential area that is very clear marked as 30mph at each of the 3 entry points.
But, no ... cyclists are a menace to be dealt with robustly.
🙄
I hereby acknowledge my poor use of 'car' instead of 'driver', in my earlier post.
Maybe IDS can pass a law making that an offence...
so that they can see where the real danger is.
You seem to be supporting the war on the poor innocent motorists.
Next you will be suggesting that we use speed cameras to victimise the poor drivers when, as we all know, only cyclists speed.
What we really need is a new offence of causing death by dangerous government.
35 clubs using Richmand Park as a “Velodrome”
Count me as *absolutely horrified* that people use a park for recreation.
😜
It may not be related. But... 🤔
I've just been shouted at for being on a bike. I was heading downhill in 20mph zone, supermarket entrance and two zebra crossings, and was [s]told [/s] shouted at that I should have pulled over to let the two cars behind speed faster than the 20mph+ I was doing.
Now I know there's more than enough numpties out there. But you do have to wonder if this week's attempt at vote grabbing headlines is giving succor to the numpties.
But you do have to wonder if this week’s attempt at vote grabbing headlines is giving succor to the numpties.
It distracts the numpties from the disaster that their government has become.
But you do have to wonder if this week’s attempt at vote grabbing headlines isn giving succor to the numpties.
Oh it will be.
There'll be deaths and injuries attributable to this latest round of culture war nonsense.
I hate to mention the B word but it's the same way that Brexit basically legitimised racist rhetoric and attacks. Suddenly the gammons found their hitherto mildly repressed racism to be acceptable on a political level.
Same here. I bet this weekend will see a statistically measurable increase in close passes and abuse. ☹️