£1000 fine for not stopping

[Bravo73]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/motorist-fine-cyclists-highway-code-b2064744.html

💣

[Phaeton91]

Whatever our views, the reality is that the new laws introduced a short while ago are in force and being tested.  The principle is clear - more vulnerable road users get the upper hand and the benefit of the doubt - a sort of workplace anti-discrimination for the roads, if you like.

I can’t opine on that clip - there were a comedy of errors including the fact that the LR had a learner plate on the back, but it could also have been very much a seriously unfunny matter had the landing not have been a soft one.  
 

What I’m sure of though is that there will be a great deal more cases of drivers being made examples of and then the outcomes publicised.  

[mg4lotus]

here are the rule changes that we are all aware of... aren't we.

Land Rover driver pleaded guilty because he was guilty.

The Highway Code: 8 changes you need to know from 29 January 2022 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[C8RKH]

Given the motorist was NOT overtaking the cyclists could you please help me by specifically pointing me to law the motorist had broken 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Bravo73

[mg4lotus]

Rule 144 You MUST NOT • drive dangerously • drive without due care and attention 12 • drive without reasonable consideration for other road users. Driving requires focus and attention at all times. Remember, you may be driving dangerously or travelling too fast even if you don’t mean to

I think the law is section 38 of the road traffic act

He was driving too close to the cyclists and not giving them reasonable consideration. They were clearly crap cyclists. Driving without due care and attention.

[pete]

18 hours ago, Bravo73 said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/motorist-fine-cyclists-highway-code-b2064744.html

💣

Surely the cyclists have to obey the highway code the same as everyone. If they had been a car they would have been obliged to stop and let the car through so why were they deemed in the right

[andydclements]

I think the pertinent info for that case @pete is that the cyclists didn't cross out of their lane, the oncoming car 9the white Peugeort) did cross the line into oncoming traffic and so moved into the lane close to the 3rd cyclist (the one with the camera). if it had been a car in place of the cyclists, then yes it would have had to stop because it would have had to cross the line into the oncoming traffic (the white Peugeot) in order to pass the parked blue one.

[pete]

So if he hadn't crossed the line would that been ok. Big discrepancies in fines

[C8RKH]

I would say so. The car should not have crossed the line.

Whilst out walking I am now tempted to wear a camera and submit evidence of reckless cycling every time. Will be interested in how the Police respond. I suspect they will do fork all .

This is awful legislation.

Edited April 26, 2022 by Bravo73

[Phaeton91]

On 26/04/2022 at 16:14, C8RKH said:

Given the motorist was NOT overtaking the cyclists could you please help me by specifically pointing me to law the motorist had broken 

Hi C8RKH.  I think the key issue is that the law has put the responsibility on drivers to take more care around what they call more vulnerable road users.  I read vulnerable in this sense as being vulnerable to personal injury from even a slight impact in a way that car drivers will never be.  It doesn’t mean vulnerable meaning frail or infirm and so whatever we think about it doesn’t now remove us from that responsibility. And of course we have to assume that everyone has a GoPro these days.

But here’s a really tricky one.  Following a cyclist on a narrow two way road with a solid white line in the middle of the road.  Law says I can cross the white line to overtake if they’re doing 10mph or less but not if they are doing more than 10mph!  I was in exactly this situation this weekend.  It’s nuts! 

[Escape]

7 hours ago, Phaeton91 said:

But here’s a really tricky one.  Following a cyclist on a narrow two way road with a solid white line in the middle of the road.  Law says I can cross the white line to overtake if they’re doing 10mph or less but not if they are doing more than 10mph!  I was in exactly this situation this weekend.  It’s nuts! 

Normally I'd say use your best judgement, if it's safe to do, do it safely. But then again laws like these and especially the enforcing prove that common sense is all but common...

[andydclements]

It's one of those situations where if people were to use common sense, then the law/ rule itself would not have ever ben considered as possibly necessary let alone introduced.

 

Thanks @Phaeton91 for stating the bit about 10mph, as I knew there was a limit on how fast the slow-moving thing could be going to legitimise me crossing the white line, but I had thought it was 20mph, so now at least I have the correct speed of 10mph locked in my mind (for now).

[C8RKH]

9 hours ago, Phaeton91 said:

Hi C8RKH.  I think the key issue is that the law has put the responsibility on drivers to take more care around what they call more vulnerable road users

I agree with you and the sentiments / PoV @Phaeton91

The issue I have is that in the first case of the three cyclists the one who fell (and probably all 3) were not exactly proficient. Maybe with the introduction of these changes they shoukd have brought in proficiency training and tests?

NOw here's the rub for me. Cyclists over the past 15 years have become, by and large, a militant entitled bunch of twits. Whilst they will video and call out car drivers etc, I know from experience as a user of shared paths many of them don't give a shit about a more vulnerable person walking and will whizz by, with inches to spare at 20mph whilst muttering obscenities if they had to slow down at all. The difference is that even if you video them it's practically impossible to identify then to take action. So with little chance of identification and punishment their sense of entitlement grows.  We need to match these rule/law changes with actions to hold ALL users accountable and responsible. Maybe then we'll see a reverse of the anger and tension that has been fuelled by entitled cyclists as much as motorists.

[mg4lotus]

I passed my cycling proficiency test over 50 years ago and I believe that was free.

Having licensing / registration / identifiability would, no doubt come with charges / fees. For an activity that is currently free to participate in at any age, after initial purchasing costs and maintenance costs, I would fight tooth and nail against its introduction and would be prepared to become an outlaw. I am not a militant, don't make me become one.

After cycling, what next? Pedestrians? Would you charge pedestrians a licence fee and make them wear registration plates? I AM NOT A NUMBER.

[C8RKH]

Yup, first response - I'm a cyclist and entitled to do what i want for free and with no consequences. The point is you SHARE the road with people who do have to pay, be licensed and are easily trackable for law enforcement. But yeah, let's just allow cyclists to do what they want with no consequences as they can always blame someone else.

This is NOT about making you a number, it IS about making you accountable for your actions.

If you have a driving licence, you are already a "number"

If you have a passport, you are already a number

If you have entitlement to work, you are already a number

If you race a cycle, you are already a number

Stop the crass "emotional" I am not a number bullshit. This is 2022 not, 1822....  Numbers are what we are to everything these days...  It's about holding people to account something that seems to be OK for motorists, but cyclists run like hell from any notion that they may be identifiable and held accountable.

Just think, a motorist must have insurance (yes, not everyone does) so if they do harm a vulnerable cyclist there is not only criminal consequences, but an opportunity for financial recompense for the cyclist.  When a cyclist doing something stupid mows down a more vulnerable "pedestrian" where is the protection and recompense?

Edited April 29, 2022 by Bravo73

[mg4lotus]

Yep, same old sh!te, tarring everybody with the same brush. Whinging, generalising, moan, moan, moan. Assumptions left, right and centre. If they are not doing what I do then it's got to be wrong.

I don't think I mentioned anything about not sharing. I don't think I mentioned anything about not being responsible for my actions. I don't think I mentioned anybody can do anything they want without consequences. I certainly pay my road tax and insurance, if you are suggesting that I don't you are being scurrilous.

Stupid cyclists that mow people down can be prosecuted and are prosecuted.

[C8RKH]

Hahahaha.

Show me the scurrilous comments about you as a motorist not paying your road tax and insurance. Just the usual typical outrage then deflection.

The point I am making, which you KNOW I am making, is that motorists are traceable much easier than cyclists as they have a "number plate" which in the majority of cases can be easily noted and used to track the vehicle owner which usually results in the driver being held to account.

So, how the flying fig do you to that with a cyclist who just rides? How do you identify them? How do you trace them?  Instead of moaning and whinging offer up some positive suggestions why don't you?

Yup, same old shite, whinging, generalising, moan, moan, moan etc etc.  You only have to go on to Faceshite and you tube and sites like Road.CC to see pages and pages of cyclists whinging how everyone else neds to get out of there way etc.  As I have evidenced before, I am NOT anti-cyclist but I am just fed up with the entitlement of cyclist whether on the road, the pavement, shared paths etc. By all means hold motorists to account, but heaven help us if we go after the sanctimonious entitled cyclists.  Funny, my cycling friends, who do 1000 miles a month riding are increasingly getting pissed off with the entitled actions of some of their brethren too.

[TpupNomad]

I cycle almost every day and I've been "hit" twice by idiots in a hurry.  The LR tires where on the side of the grass and the cyclist is irresponsible to cycle on a public road if she/he/it cannot control their bike.  As far as I'm concerned the cyclist is a ducking idiot.

The only thing I would fault the Land Rover for is "driving too fast for conditions", not causing the idiot to fall over.  Regarding comments that cars should stop on public roads for cyclists I could not more strongly disagree.

[Phaeton91]

15 hours ago, andydclements said:

It's one of those situations where if people were to use common sense, then the law/ rule itself would not have ever ben considered as possibly necessary let alone introduced.

 

Thanks @Phaeton91 for stating the bit about 10mph, as I knew there was a limit on how fast the slow-moving thing could be going to legitimise me crossing the white line, but I had thought it was 20mph, so now at least I have the correct speed of 10mph locked in my mind (for now).

My pleasure.  It’s rule 129 for future reference. Best. 

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

At 6.00pm yesterday, I was driving my son to cricket practice. We came up behind this 50-something Licra clad bloke on his racing bike. It looked like he was speeding home from work. I waited until the road widened at a right turn filter lane into a petrol station and overtook him, with plenty of room to spare. So far, so good.

About 200 yards later, I slowed down to go straight on at a roundabout. All was clear, so I kept on going. Just as I was exiting the roundabout, the cyclist suddenly appeared from the left side just a yard or two directly in front of me and promptly started shaking his head! WTF! My son was as equally shocked as I was.

The speeding cyclist had obviously not bothered to slow down for the roundabout, so had just undertaken me at the most dangerous of locations and nearly ended up killing himself. For what? Telling his disinterested wife over dinner how he’d shaved 0.5 seconds off his commute home from work?

It was the worst bit of cycling I have witnessed in my 35 years of driving.

[Cdm2018]

Many reference to cyclists and advent of wannabe Olympic or Tour de France riders has made roads a crowded place

however where is it going when we have folk on these E scooters now going on roads at speeds I judge to be over 10mph ? 

[Escape]

5 hours ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

It was the worst bit of cycling I have witnessed in my 35 years of driving.

I've got you beat on that one: last weekend we were in the Ardennes for the Gentlemen Drivers Rally, a series of runs for classic and special cars. On Saturday morning we got stuck in traffic in a local village, due to roadworks leaving only a single lane with traffic lights to regulate access (about 3 minutes of waiting and 1 minute to move on, because it was a long and narrow stretch). We'd noticed a lot of cyclists on the roads, probably an event in the area. While we were patiently (though not too happily) waiting for our turn to pass the roadworks, cyclists started moving in between the cars with disturbingly little care, passing us both on the right (as they should) and on the left, with larger groups just using the opposite lane and forcing oncoming traffic (that had just passed the roadworks) to slow, stop, or swerve to the sidewalk to avoid them. When I made it to the traffic lights they turned red again, so I waited. Not so the cyclists, they ignored the red light and went head to head with the cars passing the roadworks from the other direction. One group was forced to slow down next to me because a car decided not to yield. One of them showed a glimmer of intelligence and asked his mates 'shouldn't we stop for the red light?'. He was met with laughter as the entire group made their way past the light!

I know this is a generalization, but of the literally 100s of cyclists there I saw only a handful stop for the red light. Not a good way to start our run, luckily we could move off the main road after the roadworks.
And I must admit some of the cyclist we encountered during the rest of the day behaved better, one even waved me past while moving to the edge of the road (like I do when a fast motorcycle is on my tail). 

[pete]

So this is too close

[andydclements]

The photo was seemingly so that we understand what "passing a cyclist" means because we are too stupid to understand the term without an illustration. The police who issued the photo didn't say whether that was too close or not, but difficult at that angle to tell whether the car is even level with the cyclist.

[ramjet]

Why isn't the cyclist as far to the left as he can be in his lane? He looks like he is practically in the middle.