You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Monday is the deadline for responses to the government's consultation on death by cycling legislation. This is their second consultation, having not got the responses that they wanted last time they're trying again.
For those thinking that this won't affect them - you may be right but it is effectively upping the risk entailed in taking that cheeky footpath, running that non-BS approved light, using that canal towpath or shared use footpath. And will take resources away from prosecuting dangerous drivers.
Unbelievable idiocy to placate the Daily Mail types.
This consultation closes at
<time datetime="2018-11-05T23:45:00.000+00:00">11:45pm on 5 November 2018</time>
Well that's that then...
Anyone provide any input?
I only just noticed this thread and was otherwise unaware feedback was being sought currently so...
You've still got 10 hours. I'll be responding.
I've just responded . The online form has a series of statements & questions to respond to, plus boxes for free text comments.
Haven't read the proposals in a lot of detail, but it does feel that they are disproportionate to the problem, and distract from the far more significant issue of death and injury caused by drivers and the 'taking the piss' sentences thereby handed out. Its a sop to the Daily Mail reading cyclist haters, and scapegoats cyclists. The other issues around driver awareness & attitude education and training are far more important in terms of government & law enforcement time & resources. The proposals may well deter people from cycling at a time when we need to be investing in better, safer cycling infrastructure for health, congestion, pollution and environmental benefits.
Filled in earlier today.
Would like to think 'they' would be interested enough to read the comments. I wont hold my breath.
@cookeaa it's just a few pages of multiple choice questions, some of which are very similar. Plenty of time for you to respond 🙂
In principle I think all road users should be accountable for their recklessness and irresponsible cyclists are no exception Thus, initially I answered "yes" to the new laws. However, then I thought about how rushed, reactionary and ill-thought-out the whole thing is.
They may as well introduce a "death by letting your kid drink bleach" law.
My experience is that pedestrians blithely stepping out into roads/cycle paths is a bigger problem.
The proposed law doesn't include electric scooters, skateboards and unicycles that I encounter daily and show similar disregard for traffic laws as cyclists.
The proposed law is a PR stunt rather than a serious attempt to make the streets safer.
Completed and shared with local cycling groups, including a link to road.cc's considered view on the matter
Would like to think ‘they’ would be interested enough to read the comments. I wont hold my breath.
yup.
In my first pass of the form I selected "yes" for the proposed law and used the comments to clarify I expected enforcement of existing legislation for motorists, sentences for dangerous driving vs cycling to be sensible, clarification of where e-things fall, similar accountability for pedestrians etc. Then I realised that was a complete waste of time and I should just click "no" 🙂
What you have to remember is that the law will be changed and it will be changed to the detriment of cyclists everywhere. Laura Thomas has seen to that with her report.
This consultation is supposedly to garner opinion on how it is to be changed - though obviously it won't make any difference to the outcome.
From now on pedestrians will be able to step out in front of you with no regard for their own safety and you will end up in court. When a car hits you it will be up to you to prove you weren't cycling in a dangerous manner.
Good luck out there.
From now on pedestrians will be able to step out in front of you with no regard for their own safety and you will end up in court. When a car hits you it will be up to you to prove you weren’t cycling in a dangerous manner.
This 😔
so what happens when someone crosses a road without looking,or as happened to me an old lady stepped out between traffic.I braked and still knocked her over. quite scary.
so what happens when someone crosses a road without looking,or as happened to me an old lady stepped out between traffic.I braked and still knocked her over. quite scary.
Buy shares in bike dashcam manufacturers...
Exactly what I did. Yes to all the questions first, then changed to No for all.
I did explain why in the comments boxes but as said, I doubt they'll get read.
after I stopped everyone who witnessed it had anger towards me, so I recon the blame will default to the cyclist.
@winston - I agree the law will change. My hope in answering "no" is the government will at least do more analysis.
@trumpton - I am pretty sympathetic despite having a less hostile experience- a lady stepped in front of me last year (just after the Allinson case). I swerved and went down hard trying to avoid her. She was knocked over from a glancing blow from my shoulder and initially sat up but then collapsed. I was worried I'd get lynched even though it was clearly her fault, I couldn't have avoided her and came off pretty badly myself. Thankfully the people who actually saw it supported me. People that stopped later and the emergency services seemed to assume I had jumped the light on the nearby crossing (even if they didn't explicitly say that).
Fortunately she had come to by the time the ambulance arrived and I assume she was fine as I never heard any more about it. I was really glad about for her sake and mine. However it was slightly irritating that she wouldn't be held accountable whereas if there had been fewer witnesses perhaps I'd have been detained and questioned.
@winston - re. your last sentence- When a car hits you it's already a battle to prosecute even in seemingly clear cut cases. I got completely wiped out in 2014. Driver only prosecuted for driving without license but not for dangerous / careless driving. That was despite there being many witnesses. I don't think that will change with the new law.
I filled it in. Personally I don't have a problem with a change in the law. I understand how the laws we have work, but making things clearer should help.
I don't get some of the comments on here however.
From now on pedestrians will be able to step out in front of you with no regard for their own safety and you will end up in court.
I'm not sure were you think presumed liability will come into it. Have I missed something ?
The proposed laws will have the same burden of proof as applies to motorists. Ride your bike in a careful sensible manner, free from drink or drugs and you won't have a problem with our current or proposed laws.
There's a parallel in the motor racing world. Recently it became mandatory to carry third-party insurance for all motor vehicles. The motor racing community ignored it, thinking that it only applied to uninsured road drivers. They are now finding out that it applies to all drivers everywhere; so Sebastian Vettel is supposed to have an insurer pay for the repairs to Max Verstappen's car.
In the same way these new laws are intended to apply off-road, even in trail centres. So if you hit the dog walker heading up Launchpad...
To be fair, with the pedestrian thing, and I have experienced it loads...I do think as a cyclist, you have a responsibility to somewhat predict that behaviour, leave plenty of room (just as we expect cars to do) and slow down if it looks like a possibility.
Granted, there are going to be times when it is impossible to avoid, especially in more crowded environments where you're squeezed by vehicles on one side and pedestrians on the other. But I think there is an attitude in this country that rules are rules and you will hold your line because you're 'in the right'. Common sense and courteous behaviour gets left behind somewhat.
I've completed the response and left my comments to the report though, because I think it's ****ing ridiculous. There's actually no real substance in the given reasons for the proposal, and no indication of how it will help.
In the same way these new laws are intended to apply off-road, even in trail centres. So if you hit the dog walker heading up Launchpad…
For what it's worth I ticked the box that stated I believed the new laws should apply to roads, not all public places. I used Mnt bike centres as an example of why in the comments box.
I was about to say something similar to butcher.
The difference between cars and bikes is that road designers don't force cars and pedestrians into a shared 2.5ft wide lane and pedestrians don't usually side-step into the road. The main thing, though, is that we have a culture that says it you step into the road you've only got yourself to blame and we ingrain that into children from birth.
Ride your bike in a careful sensible manner
It's not complete clear what that is or isn't on a bike though compared to a car.
What is dangerous cycling? Especially since a bike only weighs about 10 kg. Clearly riding a bike (10kg) 1 mph over the speed limit vs driving a car (2000 kg) 1 mph over the speed limit, doesn't carry the same level of danger to other road users. Is case law and jury advice relating to motor vehicles just automatically going to apply to bicycles? That would be stupid.
To me the whole thing makes no sense except coming from this point of view where a minority of motorists simpily want vindication and revenge against those cyclists 'who hold them up' and 'ride on their road'; the subtext is that the road belongs to the motorist and everyone else should make way. The proposed legislation formalises this since it asks for the motorists' laws to apply to cyclists which only makes sense if you believe the roads belong to motorists first and foremost.
For me the main issue is that I ride on canal tow paths a lot. I've never had a collision but have had some near misses. If the law treats my bike as a de facto 2000 kg car being driven along the canal towpath I now feel much more open to liability strict or otherwise.
Perversely that could work in cyclists favor since current transport policy and planning over forces cyclists and pedestrians onto the same paths or lanes/paths in very close proximity. If the bike is to be treated like a 2000 kg in law then this would have to change. Bikes and pedestrians could be forced apart.
Like I said bikes only weight about 10 kg so the law should take this into account. The alternative is that all road users should be subject to the same 'dangerous driving' laws and burden proof and liability consequences as motorists, including skateboarders, children on bikes, maybe even kids with those wheels in their shoes?
@butcher - Fair comment. I do slow down when I spot a pedestrian buried in their phone etc and try to be courteous. Having said that, in any collision you can always argue one party was going too fast for the conditions and their personal reaction times. Apportioning legal blame in that way would mean slashing vehicle speeds significantly in urban areas. Given that many 20mph limits aren't enforced here it seems unfair to expect cyclists to stay <10mph. Basically I agree with your comment but get frustrated when 18mph is considered recklessly fast for a cyclist while 30mph for a 1.3 tonne car in the same conditioned considered ok.
@taxi25 my reading of @winston's comment is he anticipates a lower effective burden of proof for careless/dangerous cycling due to jury's prior assumption/prejudice that the cyclist has flouted traffic laws.