Motorists could face £100 fine for driving too close to cyclists

[Deleted member 26818]

I applaud any action taken by the Police to crack down on mobile phone use while driving.
Hands free kits are cheap as chips, they virtually give them away at some petrol stations now.
There’s no excuse for not using one.

 

[JAWS]

These sort of initiatives are usually carried out by Special Constables that give their time for free and have full police powers.

You need not worry about resources.

 

[Squid]

When I am on my bike I like to wind electricians up by asking them if they can remember Ohm's law when they are stuck in traffic.

 

[littlespark]

Its not just a city problem.
I welcome this proposal, but as suggested, reckless cyclists should be brought to book as well
I cycle around the rural roads and have to be out from the side to miss the potholes.
One day a bus was approaching me, and a car tried to overtake me.
I saw the bus drivers face as he tried to slow down.
Wing mirror missed me by about 3 inches

What I should have done was took a mental note of the car's number and took a controlled dive off the bike....

Where there's blame there's a claim.

 

[sparkdog]

They usually do the "wobble out" trick just as you are passing.

 

[nick00]

yes, because they can't take their licence away. thay ain't go one. and besides. compulsory insurance for cyclists should be introduced.

I know this is while ago, but I don't understand why you'd want people using bikes to be required to hold insurance when most adult cyclists already have insurance. Cyclists are considered so low risk that insurance is usually free with their home contents insurance, or you van get bespoke policies for next to nothing.

Used as transport, riding a bike does not present substantial risk to people or property, which is what compulsory insurance is designed to mitigate.

By forcing people to have insurance, you are probably going to make cycling less attractive, which is not a good thing as cycling is greatly beneficial to society.

So, why exactly do you want this to happen?

Cheers,
Nick.

 

[telectrix]

I know this is while ago, but I don't understand why you'd want people using bikes to be required to hold insurance when most adult cyclists already have insurance. Cyclists are considered so low risk that insurance is usually free with their home contents insurance, or you van get bespoke policies for next to nothing.

Used as transport, riding a bike does not present substantial risk to people or property, which is what compulsory insurance is designed to mitigate.

By forcing people to have insurance, you are probably going to make cycling less attractive, which is not a good thing as cycling is greatly beneficial to society.

So, why exactly do you want this to happen?

Cheers,
Nick.

supposing i swerve to avoid a cyclist who has just pulled across in front of me, and in doing so collide with another vehicle or pedestrian. the cyclist has caused the accident, but i would have any claim that arose made against me and my insurers. plus any damage to my own vehicle, loss of earnings, etc. could financially cripple me, all because some bike rider wasn't insured.

 

[littlespark]

What if a pedestrian walks out in front of you and you have to swerve?

some cyclists are stupid, I know.
if I pass one in the car, I wait, and pass on the other side of the road as I would with another car.
If there are two cyclists side by side, you can’t give the recommended space.

I was out on my bike last week for the first time this year, and same thing happened to me as it did in #24.... but nothing coming the other way. The car could have been right out, but decided to force me into the potholes.

let’s not split the country over cars vs bikes.... had enough with leave vs remain

 

[nick00]

supposing i swerve to avoid a cyclist who has just pulled across in front of me, and in doing so collide with another vehicle or pedestrian. the cyclist has caused the accident, but i would have any claim that arose made against me and my insurers. plus any damage to my own vehicle, loss of earnings, etc. could financially cripple me, all because some bike rider wasn't insured.

Well, the law would say that you were driving without due care. When driving around in thousands of kgs of steel, at elevated speeds, the onus is upon the driver to keep everybody else safe, and this means driving to the conditions. People on bikes are usually only a few kilos and on flimsy bike frames doing

If I approach a cyclist, or other vulnerable road user while I am in the car, I slow down, I expect that they may change course suddenly or without warning and I wait for a safe place to overtake.

As I said before, Used as transport, riding a bike does not present substantial risk to people or property, which is what compulsory insurance is designed to mitigate. If you drive carefully around vulnerable users then you probably will never have a problem.

However, if you do find your car damaged by someone on a bike, their home contents insurance, bespoke policy or, if they were on their way to or from work, maybe their employers insurance.

The point is that people on bikes are not considered hazardous enough to others to warrant compulsory insurance, and this is well documented by various sources. Cyclists are more or less considered as pedestrians by law, so if you want compulsory insurance for them, you will also need it for pedestrians, people pushing prams, etc.

Moreover, how will this be enforced? Will my 8 year old niece need compulsory insurance? What if she lends he bike to her mate?

Cheers,
Nick.

 

[PEG]

....I love this...i am firmly in the middle,as i yearn for immunity from prosecution,for knocking the idiot cyclists in to a firethorn hedge...yet...wanting full use of the highway,when out on my unicycle,as i was,this week

Two wheels are for minions...

 

[nick00]

....I love this...i am firmly in the middle,as i yearn for immunity from prosecution,for knocking the idiot cyclists in to a firethorn hedge...yet...wanting full use of the highway,when out on my unicycle,as i was,this week

Two wheels are for minions...

Really? I think somebody needs to take your license away as it would seem that you are not fit to be driving around in the community.

 

[PEG]

Really? I think somebody needs to take your license away as it would seem that you are not fit to be driving around in the community.

I agree,and as soon as i can find my unicycle licence,i will be surrendering it forthwith.

....It may have been stolen...there have a spate of thefts,lately,mostly "c"s...

 

[nick00]

I agree,and as soon as i can find my unicycle licence,i will be surrendering it forthwith.

....It may have been stolen...there have a spate of thefts,lately,mostly "c"s...

No, I mean your drivers license. You don't need a license for a bicycle. Maybe you should sit down and read the Highway Code at some point so that you understand these things.

Might also stop you from having silly ideas about injuring other road users that have more right to the roads than you do when driving around.

 

[PEG]

No, I mean your drivers license. You don't need a license for a bicycle. Maybe you should sit down and read the Highway Code at some point so that you understand these things.

Might also stop you from having silly ideas about injuring other road users that have more right to the roads than you do when driving around.

Aaah,sorry fella,i need that...it verifies my entitlement,my AD,HGV,and motorcycle provisions...so quite important,my licenCe (current spelling,in Highway Code)

There are other types of licence....poetic licence...licence given,for activities such as story telling,or humour.

The part of your post,which i do fully concur with,is the accusation that i have silly ideas...which is spot-on

 

[nick00]

Aaah,sorry fella,i need that...it verifies my entitlement,my AD,HGV,and motorcycle provisions...so quite important,my licenCe (current spelling,in Highway Code)

There are other types of licence....poetic licence...licence given,for activities such as story telling,or humour.

The part of your post,which i do fully concur with,is the accusation that i have silly ideas...which is spot-on

Apologies for the shoddy spelling.

Ha ha! You think you have an entitlement to the roads? No, no, no, that's why you're licenCed. You have a licenCe to iuse the road, a revokeable licenCe, no one has any entitlement to the roads; roads are there to be shared.

Your ability to spell licenCe correctly is sadly let down by your misunderstanding of its conditions.

Ta,
Nick.

 

[PEG]

Apologies for the shoddy spelling.

Ha ha! You think you have an entitlement to the roads? No, no, no, that's why you're licenCed. You have a licenCe to iuse the road, a revokeable licenCe, no one has any entitlement to the roads; roads are there to be shared.

Your ability to spell licenCe correctly is sadly let down by your misunderstanding of its conditions.

Ta,
Nick.

Hi,i never described any entitlement to the roads....i was listing licence entitlements,which is how the DVLA describes the groups i listed.

You are three weeks in,and i feel you may not have the understanding,of my comments...anywho,i'm out

 

[nick00]

Hi,i never described any entitlement to the roads....i was listing licence entitlements,which is how the DVLA describes the groups i listed.

You are three weeks in,and i feel you may not have the understanding,of my comments...anywho,i'm out

Great - have fun being entitled and try to resist knocking anybody off their bikes.

 

[telectrix]

somebody appears to be a typical cyclist. equivalent sense of humour as a turnip.
when cyclists pay towards the upkeep of the roads, they are quite entitled to block country lanes 3 abreast causung a mile long tailback. ( oh, sugar, they already do ).

 

[nick00]

somebody appears to be a typical cyclist. equivalent sense of humour as a turnip.

Yes, well you see this is a silly thing to say. There is no such thing as a typical cyclist, any more than there is a typical electrician, or a typical car driver, or a typical pedestrian. Cyclists are just people; they are doctors, nurses, mums, dads, aunts and uncles. Kids, tradespeople, checkout staff, solicitors, the list goes on. Trying to suggest that these people that get around sometimes on a bike are some sort of homogenous group of humourless bores, is silly. Over 80% of UK adults that use bikes regularly are drivers too. I go to work, I have a family, I have down-to-earth mates that I go to the pub with, so probably no different to anybody else. I also ride a bike sometimes.

You really do need to get over this idea that people that get around on bikes are any different to anyone else, they are just people, some nice, some not so nice, some with a sense of humour, some without.

when cyclists pay towards the upkeep of the roads...

Let me just stop you there, people on bikes do pay for the roads. Roads are funded through general taxation, road tax being abolished in 1937 by Winston Churchill, so that people using cars didn't feel that they were any more entitled to the roads than others, like people on bikes, people walking, or people riding horses. Remember that these groups have a right to the roads by law and that cyclists, incidentally, were the first to campaign for hard surfaced roads, they then shared those roads with people in cars and, what was the upshot of this? Well people in cars got the wrong end of the stick over the years and thought that they had some sort of right to the roads over everybody else. This can be seen when these people come out with things like this:

... they are quite entitled to block country lanes 3 abreast causung a mile long tailback. ( oh, sugar, they already do ).

You see , these people are not blocking roads, they are using roads to get to somewhere, just like people in cars. The fact that they are sometimes 3 abreast is neither here nor there, it is not illegal, not dangerous, and you can just use the other lane to overtake if you need to, just as you would overtake any other slow moving vehicle. In fact overtaking a group of 3 abreast is much easier than 3 in a longer line as you spend less time in the other lane.

So, I hope that clears things up.

Ta,
Nick.

 

[telectrix]

1. if road tax was abolished, why are we paying it to the tune of c.£250/annum.
2. my post was not directed at cyclists in general, just those that clog up narrow roads; don't know what your lanes are like, but ours are mostly just wide enough for 2 cars to pass. we regularly see upwards of 60 cyclists at weekends, in a 200yard pack, taking up almost all the lane's width, wriggling their lycra clad arses at drivers stuck behind. I quote from the Highway code.... "cyclists, on narrow or busy roads, ride in single file."

and these cyclists to whom i refer don't cycle to get anywhere, they just go out for the buzz.

and please bear in mind that a lot of my comments are tongue in cheek. live and let live, i say.