Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: HJD Jun 18 2015, 03:56 PM

Cycle Racing I mean. Where ever I go these days there seem to be more & more of them, clad in their tight Lycra peddling furiously with their nuts bulging out behind their ears. Don't get me wrong I've nothing against old Joe using his Raleigh to get to & fro from work, or even the Green family out for a nice Sunday ride in the country. No, it's the Head's down Bum up brigade swerving in & out trying to overtake each other like the ones coming down Hurstbourne Tarrant the other day ( do they ever try racing up it I wonder ! ). I note that a lot of the Cycle Racing on Public Highways Regulations date back to the 1960's, & as traffic volume has increased somewhat since then isn't it about time these events were confined to the track for everyone's safety !!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 18 2015, 04:59 PM

Hardly an unacceptable inconvenience though is it HJD?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 18 2015, 05:13 PM

Give it time and it will.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 18 2015, 09:19 PM

There are very few cycle races on public roads. Many time trials, and even more route-following events that are non-competitive.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 19 2015, 07:47 AM

The answer to the question in the title is no, and the answer to above is yes.
Sporting events are not suitable for public roads.

Posted by: HJD Jun 19 2015, 09:29 AM

'Time Trial', Also known as a race against the watch.
The Isle of Man TT is also a time trial, but on Closed public roads.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 19 2015, 10:43 AM

Would you agree that there is a difference between time-trialling a bicycle and a motorbike?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 19 2015, 10:45 AM

That's rather dogmatic isn't it. Can you explain your reasoning?

Posted by: HJD Jun 19 2015, 12:32 PM

Yes, probably about 150mph ! But as you well know Simon I was using that as an example. Do you / would you though if a cycle user, honestly feel safe on todays roads never mind time-trialling on them !!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 19 2015, 12:52 PM

No I don't feel safe: the roads are too busy.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 19 2015, 03:18 PM

Actually no, I'm a little nervous cycling now, though in truth I don't believe roads are so very much busier now than when I was an eighteen year-old doing 15 miles each way to work, head down, **** in the air, on the busy A13. More to the point, Mrs K. is a racing cyclist, and while I'm nervous on her behalf, I wouldn't in a million years suggest that roads are unsafe per se, though it does depend on the course - I don't see any problem time-trialling on the Andover Road or A4. But the kind of cycling you describe with one cyclist racing against the other only happens in the last few hundred yards of a road race, and I don't believe you'd find an event of that kind run on an open road, for obvious reasons.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 19 2015, 06:22 PM

Personally, I think racing cyclists are rather less of a danger and menace than several other 'rolling road blocks'. Old dodgers with caravans they can hardly control, or agricultural vehicles that can't be passed safely. Or, on the cart track to Basingstoke, the usual HGV caravan being driven at army convoy speeds....

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 20 2015, 09:08 AM

I don't!

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 20 2015, 09:11 AM

It's not safe is it?
The public roads are there for transporting people and goods.
They are twisting, sometimes narrow and often very busy.
Not designed for racing or trialling.
The suitable place for this type of event is the track like other road sports.
You are not allowed to race or trail any other vehicle on the public roads are you?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 20 2015, 10:47 AM

If that was the main criteria, then we would ban motorbikes, perhaps cars. Far more people are killed or badly injured using those things even when not racing.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 20 2015, 12:07 PM

I live in a street close to the A1 in central London.
I pop to the local Sainsbury store for a newspaper. 8am
There is a crossing nearby, but like most I chance the road.
I do have to watch out for the cyclists. Sometimes they are exceeding the local 20mph limit.
Buses and lorry traffic is fine.

The cycling commuters are all professionals , but use the bus lanes as a racetrack.
And yes Ruth and Petra, and others--The girls are always prettier and calmer.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 20 2015, 12:10 PM

So, is that trolling?
ce

Posted by: HJD Jun 20 2015, 12:48 PM

Yes, but maybe some of them were !!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 20 2015, 01:23 PM

My perception is that cycling in the district, within and between towns, is acceptably safe. Around 100 cyclists are killed each year on UK roads, most in towns. Compare that with the 330 or so motorcyclists killed annually. Not directly comparable I know, but cycling is not obviously unsafe.


That begs the question. In point of fact cyclists have the same general right as any other road user to use the road.


Yes, on narrow twisty roads you have to drive more slowly than you would on a wide straight road because you have no idea what might be round the next corner, cyclists being just one of any number of things. Sure, I don't think it would be sensible or safe to schedule a road race on such a road, and I do have experience of that very thing happening which isn't particularly impressive, but it's not an argument against cycle racing in general on public roads.


Again, this begs the question.


I've run plenty of road races on public roads open to traffic. Not my preference actually as cross country is much more fun, but road running is a perfectly legitimate use of public roads in my view. As for other vehicles, no, speed limits would generally preclude racing any other vehicle, though I've been held up behind steam traction engines before and that's quite a bit more inconvenient than passing the odd cyclist.

Posted by: Don Jun 20 2015, 03:53 PM

Howdy,

I used to be a cyclist in my younger days and I remember a time when there was more bikes than cars. I am just glad that I am not cycling today as it seems so dangerous. I must say I've seen a few car-bike accidents on the road. My grandchildren cycle and it is very worrying. They, on the other hand don't see the danger. It maybe just my age. Dear lord!

Don

Posted by: CrackerJack Jun 20 2015, 09:05 PM

The letters page in the NWN gives fairly contradictory views on cycling. Not specifically cycle racing which is a very controlled and well managed sport when conducted on the public highway, but more about general cycling. Tony Vickers arguing for more facilities and Mr Green putting the point I'm in general agreement with about using footways for cycling provide you don't endanger pedestrians.

Then there's the letter from the local cycle nut Laurie Lockwood. All well and good him pointing out the legality when he pedals along our roads in his disabled trike thing. But the reality is that cyclist vs car has messy outcomes whereas cyclist vs pedestrians rarely escalates beyond angry swearing....

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 21 2015, 08:33 AM

You miss my point. I was not talking about cycling in general, just racing on public roads.

Agreed. You miss my point. I was not talking about cycling in general, just racing on public roads.

PS. I knew the motorcycling comparison would come into it. Not valid is it? The debate is about organised racing on public roads. This is not done for motorcycling.
Please everybody don't perpetuate the motorcycling argument just because of my forum name.
Yes I know there are many kilted each year, Yes I know there are many nutters on motorbikes out there.
The debate is about organised cycling events on public roads.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 21 2015, 10:06 AM

Bicycle racing is an activity. Riding a motorbike is an activity. Driving a car is an activity. Are the relative safety concerns of bicycle racing valid? What is the definition of safe?

Yes, there is a risk in using public roads, but is it an unacceptable risk?

Posted by: On the edge Jun 21 2015, 11:53 AM

Biker makes a valid point. However, I'd argue that the formal bike races we see around and about are intrinsically safer than cycling generally. Simply because the risks are mitigated by supervision and rules; which make the riders far more visible and aware. The awareness comes as a consequence of them formally signing up to the race so by implication, willing to accept the disciplines and rules. None of that applies to the independent 'fast/racing' riders; who like their motorised peers in the same category have an apparent reckless disregard for anyone else. It's that behaviour that brings things to disrepute. I've often thought that it would be a good move to have an act that made being stupid a criminal offence.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 21 2015, 01:04 PM

I would agree with OTE.
Most reports of fatal accidents in Norfolk involve nothing much( so to speak),
other than that a tree suffered life threatening injuries.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 21 2015, 04:39 PM

The self same group that makes cycling on pavements so disliked by pedestrians - as ever the behaviour of the few spoil it for the many.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 21 2015, 07:03 PM

Yes, sure, and you made an unsubstantiated assertion that road racing is not safe. I made a plausible argument that it was not so obviously unsafe, but it's your assertion, so substantiate it.


You're point implied that racing cyclists have no right to be on the road, but you're wrong.


As I said, the point that race cycling on a public road is unsafe was yours so it's yours to substantiate, but as it needs some objective standard to measure that safety I compared cycling (of all kinds) with motorcycling which, while being less safe than driving a car, is generally considered adequately safe. It's hardly a good comparison because we don't know the accident race for road racing as opposed to cycling of all kinds, and the comparison is also questionable because we really need to know how many motorcycle and bicycle journeys are made and then think about whether we measure the accident rate per mile or per journey, but like I said, the assertion that road racing is unsafe was yours, and it's certainly not my experience that road racing is recklessly dangerous, so the point is yours to defend rather than mine to knock down.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 21 2015, 07:14 PM

I was nearly knocked down one time by a furious cyclist on the path from Victoria Park under the A339 who I thought I recognised as a member of Spokes.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 22 2015, 02:21 PM

Like I said, other types of vehicle racing is banned on public roads. Why is that?
Large groups of cyclists racing along public roads also used by lorries, cars, motorcycles, horses etc.?
Are they concentrating on the road or the racing?
It's common sense it's not safe why do I need to elaborate more?

Posted by: On the edge Jun 22 2015, 03:50 PM

I would have thought they'd be concentrating on both; road and race. Having a little experience in my misspent youth many many years ago, a key thing with bike racing was to anticipate exactly what was coming up; if only to adjust the gears / peddle rate in good time. Plus, with properly constituted races, there are stewards and othe officials policing what goes on. That doesn't happen with motorised speedsters does it? Yeah, now and again a big bike race will effectively be a rolling road block; waiting motorists guided through by a control car. A tad frustrating, but as said before, no more so than the Army convoys or excess loads. So, sorry Biker, common sense doesn't say it's not safe; arguably quite the reverse.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 22 2015, 05:34 PM

You need to define safe. Bicycles, even racing ones, pose little danger to the public, a racing motor vehicle does.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 22 2015, 05:54 PM

If it's safe why are there signs saying "Caution Cycle Race In Progress"?
Why do they need to warn people?
Is it because they might get hit?
Can't be.
It's safe!!

Posted by: On the edge Jun 22 2015, 06:12 PM

You might be making a point for the 'elf and safeti' jobsworths we all suffer from. Using your argument, that anywhere with a 'Caution' sign is intrinsically unsafe and should be stopped, would close down most of the Country. Petrol filling stations, cricket matches, electricity substations, the Tube network included. Of course, as you've been saying Bike racing is 'dangerous', but so is walking, swimming, etc. it's all a matter of degree....and mitigation.

Posted by: HJD Jun 22 2015, 07:18 PM

Have you ever thought of becoming a politician !

Posted by: HJD Jun 22 2015, 07:31 PM

OK. So we do not have to worry about the above.



Its these we have to watch out for !

Posted by: On the edge Jun 22 2015, 08:54 PM

Quite so, I'd like to see cyclists properly Policed. Fining those riding without lights, or 'recklessly' or disobeying traffic signs etc. etc. indeed riding a bicycle that doesn't comply with construction regulations. A few high profile prosecutions would certainly bring in a bit more responsibility.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 22 2015, 09:20 PM

I'm guessing we'd all agree that some cyclists are inconsiderate, but that's not the proposition of the OP. I don't see any argument for banning road racing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 23 2015, 12:18 AM

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that bicycle races made roads safer by slowing down traffic and making drivers more alert.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 23 2015, 05:02 AM

Actually I think he has!!

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 23 2015, 05:10 AM

No, legally they do.
I still don't think they should be allowed to.
There will always be an impasse on many subjects this included.
Those who are supporters and those who are not.
The public roads are for getting from A to B, not for racing on.
The continued argument is pointless. You are a race cycling supporter and I am not.
No further debate will change that.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 23 2015, 06:47 AM

It's not so much that I'm a supporter, I'm really rather ambivalent, it's just that your argument against road racing appears to be irrational and predicated largely on an assertion that it just shouldn't happen and that's not an argument that convinces me.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jun 23 2015, 07:44 AM

If you search out and look at the Traffic Regulation Order imposing the 20 mph limit, you will find - like most TROs - that it only applies to motor vehicles.

You may also note that non-motor vehicles are not required to have a speedometer.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 23 2015, 09:02 AM

Or apparently stop at red traffic signals, travel the right way down a one way, obey stop signs or indeed bother with any of the restrictions imposed on motor vehicles. Indeed, why should they? Lycra solves everything.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jun 23 2015, 09:06 AM

Actually, road rallying is still perfectly legal - which is rally cars against the clock.

It's just that it has become such a pain to organise that stage rallying has all but taken over...

One of the things that I object to about cycle racing on public roads is the attempt by well meaning amateurs (marshals?) to override the road signage to allow the cyclist priority This is entirely illegal and only a uniformed Police Office or Traffic Warden (not CEO!) or Lollipop lady has the right in law to direct traffic contrary to proper signage

Posted by: On the edge Jun 23 2015, 09:16 AM

Or indeed motorcycles up to 100cc or vehicles first registered before 1 April 1936(?) - which solved me a problem with my old Matchless many years ago! However, it doesn't apply to brakes or tyres....bigger fine too! I don't argue if I get stopped these days.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 23 2015, 12:39 PM

I'm a support of anything that might promote a more wholesome use of the highway than people driving or riding aimlessly for the sake of it, as many drivers do, especially bike riders.

If these races are a genuine risk I would agree with you, but is it really an issue that needs to be addressed?

Posted by: Blake Jun 23 2015, 03:28 PM

The truth is that the roads are not exclusively the domain of motor vehicles; the roads are used by cyclists, horses and even the odd steam engine and tractor. It is a shared space.

Visit Box Hill in Surrey sometime if you think we have a lot in West Berkshire!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 23 2015, 05:00 PM

The Olympic road race went up that Box Hill didn't it - amazing, though I'm pretty sure it was closed to traffic at the time.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 23 2015, 05:41 PM

It was not a village I know, but was Box Hill area.

Pub lunch in a pretty village before the Olympics cycling---
There was unrest in the bar about the letter that had been sent to all of the route houses and suggested appropriate
colours for their window boxes and front gardens. Such is life.

The village was not happy about being "Kettled"

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 23 2015, 06:28 PM

Well OK but the OP question was "is it appropriate" and I still say no.
Like most subjects, opinions differ.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 23 2015, 06:30 PM

Correct.
But only cyclists race on them when they are open to other traffic.

Ahhh, now you're talking!
Great (motor)bike ride and a lovely spot.
And of course there's http://www.rykas.co.uk/ which is a recognised biker's meet.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 23 2015, 06:32 PM

I wouldn't argue with that.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 23 2015, 06:34 PM

I'm mention road running already, but I'll let it drop now.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 23 2015, 06:38 PM

Good point! Missed that before.
Not sure that's a good idea on open roads either but, as you say, I'll let it drop.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 23 2015, 08:07 PM

Pity! This has been a serious but very good debate; I suspect we've all learned something.

Posted by: HJD Jun 24 2015, 08:28 AM

As I was the OP I am in complete agreement with you, I think Motorcyclists really have to be more aware of the dangers on the roads & that's why our opinions sometimes differ from others.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 24 2015, 09:10 AM

Yes, that's right, but actually it applies to all categories of road users. There was a good point made earlier where it was said our roads weren't designed for racing. True, but then most of our roads were designed for a lower traffic density and rather smaller cars. Personally, and appreciating I'll be in a minority of one, the present trend for massive people carriers is far more dangerous than we are lead to believe. They are wider and their roomy construction gives a dangerously false sense of security. Quite easy to sail past a bike race in an old escort, different matter with a stretched Land Rover.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 24 2015, 03:14 PM

There is a move to up the speed limit for HGVs on country roads.
And a similar move to drop speeds in towns to 20MPH
Which group( apart from horses and carts) will stick to that.
There are a lot of new cameras along the proposed routes into central London.
I have to be aware of cyclists...but not horses yet

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 24 2015, 05:30 PM

Road Runners ? Simon K
Are you a cartoon?
ce

sorry!

Posted by: gel Jul 1 2015, 07:45 PM

Bad Cycling legislation?

We should look at someat similar:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/on-the-spot-fines-for-dangerous-cyclists-to-be-introduced-1.2269832

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 1 2015, 08:41 PM

Hideous idea; no.

Posted by: CrackerJack Jul 1 2015, 08:42 PM

Nonsense.

An excuse for lazy coppers or power hungry plastic plod (PCSOs) to get some easy pickings that's all. I disagree entirely with the insistence that in all circumstances cyclists should join the general traffic flow and compete with the yummy mummies in their 4x4's, the couriers chasing their delivery schedules and HGV drivers with their overloaded beasts. It's an unfair contest should the inevitable happen and one comes into contact with the other.

Cycling like a maniac is different but there's already laws in place for that sort of cycling. There's no excuse for any more unnecessary or avoidable cycle deaths on the road.

http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/cycling-offences-riding-dangerously-recklessly-carelessly-or-inconsiderately

Posted by: On the edge Jul 1 2015, 09:33 PM

Can't see what's wrong with the idea. Could be extended to many other anti social deviances as well. Such as littering, minor shop lifting, road offences etc.etc. Give the enforcers mobile card payment machines. Incentivise them and hey presto, safer, cleaner streets and a nice income stream. We keep banging on about law and order; this is a good opportunity to get some.

Posted by: CrackerJack Jul 1 2015, 11:01 PM

Trouble is the law can be an *** and those who enforce the laws can be as$holes. Quite a number of people have been prosecuted for 'littering' after throwing apple cores from their cars.

Incentivise them you say... Instant payment enforcement you say... Making sure that laws are adhered to etc etc.

That sounds far more draconian than current parking enforcement procedures locally and god knows there's enough complaints that it's a 'nice little earner' and the streets are patrolled by jackbooted WBC Stormtroopers. In what way would the Cycle Gestapo differ from parking wardens who are also enforcing traffic laws?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 2 2015, 01:25 AM

Agreed. I don't want to live in a world of petty Judge Dredds. It would also be the thin end of the wedge: the privitisation of policing.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 2 2015, 06:11 AM

So its two fingers to those who complain about people parking in front of their homes, or cyclists zipping along narrow pavements, or drivers who don't concentrate on what they are doing, is it? Presumably these 'jackbooted stormtroopers' are the same ones being complained about for not keeping the streets clear as you drive around. What are they supposed to do?

Posted by: CrackerJack Jul 2 2015, 07:29 AM

.....except that's not what you said. With an incentive run enforcement scheme you'll get tickets and fines being issued to cyclists trundling along wide open pavements with not a pedestrian in sight as well, not just those 'zipping along narrow pavements'.

It's about finding the right balance on what is the appropriate level to commence enforcement. Otherwise you end up with this sort of thing:


EDIT: (link not working)

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

Posted by: On the edge Jul 2 2015, 10:09 AM

Quite right. What's wrong with that? The law is the law even when no one is looking! Some old gent. riding sedately along an empty pavement is quite OK...until some old bird, partially sighted, comes out of her hedge bordered garden gate...bang. It happened to a neighbour who took a year to get back to normal(ish). So, where is your balance?

We also keep hearing about how idle and non discriminatory the enforcers of the rules are today. Oooh I got a parking ticket because I couldn't be arsed to read the signs, or I was only 10 minutes over etc. etc. And then the 'you never see a Warden round here and some xxx has parked outside my house'. So, the best way to stop all this frustration is to lift the game and make no exceptions.

We English can't cope with Roman law, yet another reason for us to exit Europe!

Posted by: CrackerJack Jul 2 2015, 11:17 AM

This link works.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-31805312
It demonstrates that if you rigidly apply the law to the precise letter in every circumstance you can end up looking a foolish automaton.

I imagine this copper has been the butt of endless jokes in the workplace since this overzealous application of his interpretation of traffic law.

Posted by: Roost Jul 2 2015, 01:22 PM

And of course that must be true and entirely accurate as its on BBC website ;-)

Posted by: On the edge Jul 2 2015, 02:38 PM

Just one silly, and we don't even know all the facts! That's the same sort of story we hear time and again 'other way round'. Like the myriad 'I was only eat'in a nana and they booked me'....then in next page, we see a clip of some dame eating a bowl of hot porridge whilst driving. Still, I suppose the families of the bereaved where some clown has written off innocent loved ones because they were texting or looking at porn whilst driving, might get a little comfort from the fact that the 'stormtroopers' infringed the drivers liberties and looked up their phone records. Me? I wonder if such unnecessary incidents could have been avoided if these offenders had had their collars felt earlier in their lives. Yes, I'm sure the Police do see the BBC as a joke.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 2 2015, 04:05 PM

I don't believe in draconian measures based on anecdotal evidence. Politicians (and others) do it all the time: "Just the other day I was speaking to a..." So effin what. Does that prove the case? Of course not.

I believe we should have as few laws and punitive measures as possible while maintaining reasonable order. On-the-spot fines I see as an insidious measure to to keep the plebs in check by the well off.

If cycling is a menace, lets see the evidence. Lets see the casualty figures, etc. In my view, 10 people getting bruised by a reckless cyclist is not justification to fine all people £100.00 for riding on the pavement.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 2 2015, 06:29 PM

Very true, but not a week goes by without some complaint about reckless cycling, or reckless parking or wittering about people parking in front of others houses etc.etc. etc. Not only here, but all over the media. We wander about and notice a growing sea of litter and filth in our streets.

....and we then complain that nothing is done.

Well, now here is something which might have a chance of satisfying the complaints. What other evidence is needed? People are being injured, disadvantaged and having their quality of life ruined.

I really can't see this as a class thing, more to do with better behaviour. Why should we have to suffer; simply because a few very selfish people think they are above the law.

Draconian it might seem, but even with the relaxed attitudes we have today, some see the enforcement services as 'storm troopers' 'plastic Policemen' 'green meanies' etc.

So, the choice seems to be stark, continue our 'stuff you and everyone else' society or clean up our act. Frankly, we don't seem able to do the latter on our own; hence that continued stream of complaint.

Posted by: CrackerJack Jul 2 2015, 07:17 PM

In for a penny then..... time to crack down on the spitters and become a nation of swallowers...


Chewing gum of course (what else?). The blight of every town centre and seemingly nothing is done about it. Singapore has the right idea but do we actually have a law to tackle this sticky menace?
(We've kind of drifted away from the whole 'racing on public roads' theme in case you haven't noticed)



...and let's not get started on the deliberate dog mess nastiness. Greenham Common is becoming a dig turd paradise for dog owners who don't want to have the bother of bending down and picking up their hound's faecal deposits.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 2 2015, 08:02 PM

Couldn't agree more. Anti social behaviour should be treated holistically, irresponsible cycling is but one manifestation. Both the disgusting things you mention are others. Gobbling gum is despicable too, because it doesn't recycle. Any more than the thick cretins who pick up dog poo, then hang it in local bushes. Frankly, I'd rather keep company with a few properly marshalled racing cyclists than people who litter the streets in the way you rightly mentioned.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 4 2015, 07:07 PM

Fortunatly the council spent a fortune on Gum resistant paving so you won't see any in Newbury Town Centre

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 5 2015, 08:40 AM

Change the feckin law then.

Change the feckin law then.
Like it or not it is ILLEGAL to ride a bicycle on the pavement. (Unless marked as a cycle lane.)
Chaos at the moment.
For example, Should I stop for a cyclist crossing a zebra crossing, or should the cyclist be on the road stopping for pedestrians? Is it a road vehicle or a pavement vehicle?
If a cyclist on the road meets a cyclist crossing a zebra crossing who gives way, the road vehicle or the pavement vehicle?????
I know it's been done many times before but couldn't resist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yiu1uLgwF1E again. Made me laugh out loud so many times.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 5 2015, 10:18 AM

It is already illegal to ride on the pavement and that works by keeping most traffic off the path. However, I don't agree in any increase in punitive measures to maintain that law.

I don't see chaos and I see changing the law as an unnecessary expense.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 6 2015, 07:30 AM

It has to be clear in the eyes of the law.
If riding a bicycle on the pavement is safe and socially acceptable then the law must be changed.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 6 2015, 08:39 AM

It is obvious that this and other laws are generally speaking unenforced - and, therefore, almost pointless. The Irish law is an example of a change that could be made - but a poor one that relies on the judgement of the enforcers as to what is 'dangerous'. Any situation like that leads to confusion and a lot of court expense over whether the accused was being 'dangerous'. A speed limit would be another idea - but still pretty much unenforceable.

Until a better replacement comes along at least the current law means that someone riding dangerously in the eyes of the police can be prosecuted, with little burden of proof because the offence is much easier to prove 'riding on the pavement'. In effect we already have a better version of the Irish law - turn a blind eye to safe cycling on pavements (the socially acceptable bit) but not the dangerous.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 6 2015, 09:23 AM

Exactly!

Posted by: On the edge Jul 6 2015, 12:34 PM

Sorry, wholly disagree. It's NOT 'socially acceptable' to cycle on pavements, even when it seems safe to do so, any more than it being 'socially acceptable' to nip through red lights when there is no other traffic around, or use a mobile 'phone whilst on an empty highway, or have 'one for the road' when coming back from the pub. Our law puts even more powers in the hands of the prosecutors, the wardens etc. at least the Irish system is simple and very easy to understand - break the law, get fined, end of story.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 6 2015, 05:15 PM

Of course it's socially acceptable to cycle with care and consideration on pavements - if it wasn't we wouldn't see it happening, the police would use their existing powers to stop it. You and I may grumble about it but the fact is that it is generally accepted. The Irish law accepts this and legalises cycling on pavements. The Irish law is about punishing dangerous cycling - but leaves it to the enforcers to determine what is dangerous. Legislation reliant on subjective judgements is pretty much by definition bad law.

I prefer our law simply because the offence is far more straightforward and provable and the subjective element is to decide not to prosecute rather than decide to prosecute. No one argues about not being prosecuted, so it is a far cheaper law to administer with minimal waste of court time.

Personally I'd prefer to see the police enforcing the law far more and far less cycling on pavements. This doesn't need a change in the law, just a change in attitude - much as drink driving has gone from socially acceptable to a heinous crime in my lifetime. It also needs safer alternatives for cyclists - which is the real reason why cycling on pavements is accepted.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 6 2015, 05:38 PM

That's a reasonable enough position, but yet the police, prosecutors, and judges all use a degree of subjective judgement and the result is that we have a legal system which, while occasionally an ***, is frequently just in a way that a rigid prescriptive system has no room to be.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 6 2015, 06:07 PM

You are right, but it's the subjective element that makes lawyers rich and our legal system so expensive, often to the extent that it prices the majority out - which is hardly just.

I'd prefer subjective opinion limited to sentencing rather than determination of guilt - taking into account mitigating circumstances, mental health etc. Of course the evidence will often be such that the jury's subjective opinion will be key to the verdict - but IMO the less that occurs the better. However, this is way beyond cycling on pavements!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 6 2015, 07:23 PM

You're right that it's only the rich and powerful who get justice, and was ever thus - we celebrate 800 years of Magna Carta but that did nothing for the common man and did little more than ensure the rights of the barons. Civil justice will always be unjust while the looser has to bear the costs of the winner because a rich litigant will always bully a poor litigant into submission. Let litigants bear their own costs and justice becomes much simpler. Of course that will probably never happen because of the vested interest of the legal profession, but there are examples - the Information Tribunal, and the Employment Tribunal to name two. You were talking about criminal law which is a bit different though.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 6 2015, 07:29 PM

How does one measure social acceptance? That very much depends on the circles in which you mix. One could argue that littering is socially acceptable, because everyone does it, or sitting with your feet up on other seats in public transport.

This may have started to become the norm, but accepted? I some how doubt that. As usual, the biggest problem come from the irresponsible; whose numbers increase where enforcement action is limited - that's human nature.

Increasingly, we are finding the old discressionary approach is being abused, by both enforcer; as a revenue stream) and offender; as an excuse to extend boundaries.

Whilst I too have a fond attachment to the basic concepts of the English legal system; its just nostalgia. Today's society simply can't cope with anything other than strict rule. Hence the inevitable rows about drivers who feel the non statutory bits of the Highway Code need not be heeded.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 6 2015, 08:15 PM

What exactly is funny?

The law is clear, but the police have discretionary powers, and not just on this topic either.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 6 2015, 08:17 PM

Your post contradicts itself, but I agree with the second part.

In effect, the law is there if it is ever needed.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 6 2015, 08:55 PM

Given the large number of complaints (see NWN letters!) the law is needed but needs to be enforced. Clearly, the discretionary approach doesn't work. Probably why the Irish, whose law is based on ours, have now adopted a more robust approach.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 6 2015, 09:01 PM

Please define 'large number of complaints'? The 'problem' I see is too few coppers, not a failure of the discretionary approach.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 6 2015, 09:02 PM

I wrote 'almost pointless', not pointless - implying that it does have a point albeit a rarely used one.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 6 2015, 09:12 PM

The Irish have robustly legalised cycling on pavements - how is that going to satisfy the vocal complainants?

A few people write to the paper, perhaps 100x as many seethe silently (or noisily in the pub). In total perhaps as many people feel strongly about it as do it. The vast majority don't care that much either way - until you try to stop their children riding their bikes on the pavement and force them to share the streets with ever more, ever larger vehicles.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 6 2015, 11:10 PM

The complaints in the paper seem on the whole to be exaggerated and full of hyperbole. I'm sure there is the occasional 'naughty' from a cyclist, but I get the sense there is a lot more vindictiveness than genuine concern for ones safety.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 7 2015, 06:43 AM

Well, that's an interesting interpretation, which must presumably apply to all the other letters that get published. I must admit, we would save ourselves a lot of money and hassle if we did stop listening to these vindictive witterings. For instance, we would not have had a Cinema and could eliminate the cost of all the planning appeals etc. Perhaps you are right; the letters are for the most part pointless. And cycling on the footpath? In personal terms I don't give a ****. I'm a big lad, but slow reactions; any cyclist colliding with me is likely to come off far worse. Their problem, not mine.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 7 2015, 08:09 AM

You saying the law keeps most traffic off the path.
Nearly ALL cyclist cycle on the path at some time!

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 7 2015, 08:10 AM

It's not "socially acceptable" to drop litter but many do it and few are prosecuted.
I therefore agree with OTE regarding the association with "socially acceptable" and the law.
I will admit that riding on the pavement with due respect for pedestrians is "socially acceptable" but against the law.
Then again riding down Nothbrook Street on a crowded Saturday morning at high speed, weaving around pedestrians is, in my opinion, not socially acceptable but within the law!
Cyclists and due respect for others combined with common sense would be nice!

Posted by: blackdog Jul 7 2015, 08:56 AM

I disagree with the comparison - I see a lot of litter and don't like it - but I rarely see anyone littering. The reasons for non-prosecution are very different - to prosecute the offender has to be seen committing the offence - easy with cyclists on pavements, difficult with litterers.

It becomes socially acceptable in my book when the police decide not to enforce the law unless the offence is abnormally bad (eg cycling dangerously on a pavement).

A better comparison is the motorway speed limit - it is socially acceptable yet illegal to drive over the speed limit on a motorway - virtually every driver does it, the police have no interest in enforcing the legal speed limit and arbitrarily decide what speed limit they will enforce (85?, 90?, 100?).

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 7 2015, 11:02 AM

So I'm right then.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 7 2015, 11:05 AM

Dropping litter anywhere other than a waste bin is never socially acceptable, but I would argue that riding on a pavement is not always dangerous or a problem, albeit anti-social.

Posted by: CrackerJack Jul 7 2015, 11:26 AM

The doddery old farts writing to the letters page probably haven't been on a bike in the last couple of decades and have no concept of what it feels like to cycle amongst live traffic. Laurie Lockwood is a local cycle campaigner and often rants about it, but he cycles a disabled trike with flags and high-visibility vest at two miles an hour along the A4. Hardly a comparison to most cycle users.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 7 2015, 02:34 PM

Err, the Police don't enforce simply because of resource issues....however, we now use cameras, and in spite of the mewling of the motorist lobby; we still have them and they are becoming more sophisticated. Quite a thought though, if cyclists were properly regulated and had to have a licence plate, then perhaps we could more properly enforce the existing law. It could also give the cyclists some real legitimacy when challenged about not paying for the roads as well as raising some much needed revenue. Now that might be a way forward.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 7 2015, 02:37 PM

And to think we actually one the war.

Makes one wonder why we bothered.

Posted by: CrackerJack Jul 7 2015, 05:26 PM

That is such a cop-out (pun intended)

In the same way that they don't enforce people parking on the pavement, or blocking people's driveways despite the police being the only ones who have the legal powers to enforce.

Default option when you speak to their Call Centre staff is "speak to your Council". Sloping shoulders over their responsibilities.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 7 2015, 05:36 PM

Perhaps they priorities according to risk to the public. Perhaps those things are not deserving of their limited time?

Posted by: CrackerJack Jul 7 2015, 05:43 PM

I appreciate that and accept they can't be everywhere but why don't they tell their Call Centre staff that instead of passing the buck to the council who don't have the legal powers. A bit of honesty about resourcing wouldn't go amiss...


..and as OTE says, laws are laws and should be enforced


(whereas my opinion and that of others is that laws and rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise)

Posted by: On the edge Jul 7 2015, 08:14 PM

Have you not noticed, we have very few wise men round here.....

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 8 2015, 08:05 AM

Yes officer, I know I was doing 45 in a 30 zone but surely the signs were just for guidance?
It would have been foolish to obey them.
My wisdom told me that 45 was OK?
Sorry officer, step out of the car and blow into........................?!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 8 2015, 12:39 PM

Why?

I doubt anyone can go a week without breaking the law. Is that what we all want? That sounds inhuman to me.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 8 2015, 01:15 PM

There is an element of truth in this - IMO all laws should have an automatic expiry date. If needed they could be renewed, but the review and renew process would ensure that laws remained relevant. I wonder if MPs today would vote for a law making it illegal to cycle on pavements?

Posted by: CrackerJack Jul 8 2015, 02:33 PM

It was OTE's view really, not mine.

There's a sliding scale for punishment of the more serious crimes,but with minor misdemeanors such as this you can get the full penalty even if you are cycling at walking pace but happen to come up against a grumpy PCSO with a chip on his shoulder and an enforcement target to meet....

Posted by: On the edge Jul 8 2015, 02:55 PM

Then why are the general public calling for new laws all the time and why do politicians continually introduce more and indeed condone a whole industry making statutory instruments, local government by laws, HSE regulation etc. etc? In essence then, a complete and utter waste of time! Actually, in statutory terms, I can't think of any law I've actually broken for quite some time.

The are other ways of course. The classic being anarchy, where acceptable behaviour is decided as you go. If the community feel someone is acting out of turn, then he's 'dealt with'. How about that? It's certainly democratic.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 8 2015, 03:01 PM

So then, let's imagine you get booked by grumpy PCSO and subsequently discover she's used her discretion to let off three previous offenders, just minutes beforehand. You'd be happy and wouldn't make a fuss? If so, you'd be in a minority! A rigid approach eliminates that perceived unfairness and bias caused by the mood or attitude of the enforcer.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 8 2015, 03:34 PM

The police would soon find itself alienated from a valuable resource: the public. Just because someone let someone off is no argument, if you are guilty.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 8 2015, 03:36 PM

I believe it is because they are ignorant or intolerant or both. Or have been unfortunate.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 9 2015, 06:50 AM

Yes, and we still let them vote!

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 9 2015, 09:23 AM

Why do we have to be tolerant all the time?
Sometimes it is appropriate to be intolerant.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 9 2015, 10:14 AM

I never said it wasn't, but intolerance for irrational reasons is not often appropriate.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 9 2015, 10:14 AM

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jul 9 2015, 02:36 PM

There is no general statute that makes parking on the pavement an offence (except in London - where it is forbidden unless explicitly permitted)

Posted by: On the edge Jul 9 2015, 03:53 PM

...but driving on the pavement is an offence. Simply a matter of watching

I have to say, it's rather incredible that the local populace seems to think it's great fun and highly acceptable for vehicles to be written off when 'bollarded' in the Wharf, but try and enforce a few simple parking manners....

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 9 2015, 05:02 PM

Things may have changed, but decades ago I got a ticket from the plod for parking on a pavement as it was alleged I was causing an obstruction. Other than erosion, parking on the pavement isn't really a problem unless it causes an obstruction.

Posted by: CrackerJack Jul 9 2015, 06:51 PM

The size of the double buggies you see these days and the size of mobility scooters in use it doesn't take much for an obstruction offence to take place. TVP guidance for officers does however require there to be an offence of 'actual obstruction' rather than someone just randomly complaining about it in a "think of the children!!!" type of way... and they have to be prepared to attend court and give evidence in case the obstruction charge is contested (which generally makes people think twice)

Posted by: CrackerJack Jul 9 2015, 06:53 PM

It takes an obscure law from 1835, intended to regulate use of hobby-horses, to prosecute for it though...

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 13 2015, 02:24 PM

Coming into Newbury on Enborne Road yesterday.
Came to the first "chicane" where traffic into Newbury has priority over oncoming traffic.
As I was about to pass through 2 cyclists riding abreast came through causing me to brake sharply to avoid a collision.
Flashed my headlights to "let them know I was there" and received in return the 1 middle finger salute!
Luv em!!

Posted by: Strafin Jul 13 2015, 03:12 PM

Nothing annoys me more than someone flashing their lights! Simply run them over next time

Posted by: HJD Jul 13 2015, 04:11 PM

Were they wearing those Helmet Cams to prove they are always in the right in case of an accident !!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 13 2015, 07:03 PM

'Flashing lights' is not a legitimate communication method, is it?

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 14 2015, 07:41 AM

HIGHWAY CODE RULE 110
"Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users."

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 14 2015, 07:42 AM

They're always right all of the time aren't they??

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 14 2015, 10:39 AM

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 14 2015, 11:32 AM

As I clearly said in my original post - QUOTE...."Flashed my headlights to "let them know I was there"".
As obviously they either hadn't seen me or were unable to see / understand clear road signs.
No other message or intimidation intended.

Posted by: motormad Jul 16 2015, 02:48 PM

I love racing on public roads.
The M25 is particularly good.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 17 2015, 07:59 AM

If it's moving at all!!

Posted by: motormad Jul 21 2015, 02:29 PM

Hah!

Unfortunately the local feds have ruined "The Link" for us. so have to find somewhere.

Posted by: Exhausted Jul 22 2015, 07:26 PM

0 to 100mph at the footbridge.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 22 2015, 08:57 PM

120s is the threshold now I believe!

Posted by: CrackerJack Jul 22 2015, 11:05 PM

I kinda hope 6 points or a ban will be the threshold

Posted by: x2lls Jul 23 2015, 12:27 AM

I think the threshold is the speed limit or the road/traffic condition.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 23 2015, 08:17 AM

It's the roundabout that is the problem: there's not enough braking distance.

Posted by: Exhausted Jul 23 2015, 08:22 PM

One hopes that a 120mph car will have 120mph brakes.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 23 2015, 08:25 PM

They do, it is just not 120mph stopping distance.

Posted by: motormad Jul 27 2015, 10:12 AM

To be fair though, most people only go up the link to the bridge and then brake (a good 400m or so) or from the Top roundabout down to the bridge (again about 400m) and most people slow down with plenty of time.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 30 2015, 10:18 AM

What happens to those that don't?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 30 2015, 11:13 AM

You have to go straight on at the roundabout; which is cheating.

Posted by: motormad Jul 30 2015, 11:52 AM

Exactly, nobody likes a cheat.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 30 2015, 06:23 PM

Having driven on to it at speed presumably - hoping that there is no one heading for Tescos at the time.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 30 2015, 07:13 PM

Yes that would be another snag.