flatpopely
Prog Rock/Moderator
Opinions are divided. I’m not cancelling my subscription to EVO magazine anytime soon.
Cyclists to be awarded equality with motorists.
- Thread starter Rob998
- Start date
Opinions are divided. I’m not cancelling my subscription to EVO magazine anytime soon.
JensenHealey
pfm Member
Defining a vehicle is becoming more blurred. Those who would like to characterise a bicycle as not being a vehicle - what happens to the classification of the growing number of e-bikes? They could/should be called a motor vehicle? Same for electric scooters.
I think all wheeled road users should be subject to exactly the same laws, limits, restrictions and penalties for infringement. I cannot see a reasonable argument for any difference. Granted, perhaps not the most urgent legislation ever promulgated. And many proposed laws never get to statute - time and effort vs importance means many run into the sand at parliament.
I think all wheeled road users should be subject to exactly the same laws, limits, restrictions and penalties for infringement. I cannot see a reasonable argument for any difference. Granted, perhaps not the most urgent legislation ever promulgated. And many proposed laws never get to statute - time and effort vs importance means many run into the sand at parliament.
Wheelbarrows, pushchairs, shopping trolleys?
foxwelljsly
Me too, I ate one sour too.
I agree with the whole electric thing, e bikes are not bikes and should not necessarily be treated the same - especially in terms of the use of bridleways and restricted byways.
But the law has to balance between the cost of enforcement and the risk it's looking to mitigate. If the risk is statistically negligible (ie the number of people killed annually by bicycles vs cars), why devote or allocate resources to enforcement?
Pavements, Joe. Also, no roads without footpaths round your way? I live on one.
gintonic
50 shades of grey pussy cats
yes I agree. In all spaces they are likely to be used. After all a dead pedestrian, is a dead pedestrian.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Indeed. This is, AIUI, the thinking behind the recent moves to establish a heirarchy of responsibility for road users, so cars, buses and lorries have the biggest duty of care, then motorbikes, then cyclists, and pedestrians after, based on the degree of vulnerability and the capability to inflict harm.
This doesn't absolve pedestrians from a duty to take care for their own safety either. Stepping into the road without looking, absorbed in your phone, would be a contributory factor if you got taken out by a wheeled road user.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I think you're being a bit obtuse about the definition of wheeled road user here, Steve. No real need to get too literal.
The one that puzzles me is these electric mobility scooters. I sometimes see them using the road and I cringe, because they look so vulnerable. I presume their operators believe they can't use the pavement. It seems to me that given they operate at a walking pace, they ought to be allowed to use the pavement just as ambulatory users do.
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
I sometimes need to take my wheelbarrow beyond the boundaries of my property for fly tipping. Just joking....
My wheelbarrow has a flat tyre, it's quite a thing to get it to move at all. Can't be arsed to fix it.
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
You live on a pavement/footpath? Or is it a road you live on? We need to know.
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
Walking pace? My neighbour has one and it goes at a lot more than walking pace, or looks like it does. Also, I nearly got hit by one a number of years ago zooming along on a path in Exeter as I walked out of a department store. If it had hit me and not killed me I would probably be in jail now.
Terrible for wildlife
Yes, I get that but the threshold for this offence is so stupidly high that it rarely happens, as highlighted upthread it generally falls under ‘careless’ so the sentences end up being rather lenient.
That is a rather naive view. Most things Tories propose are wrong, it’s in their nature.
I would expect a more reasoned response from Sir K, he understands the law.
If we can’t even adequately sentence the much more common occurrence of death by car what is the point of tackling the 1 or 2 deaths a year that happen by cycle? Priorities & outcome would be far better elsewhere.
E-bikes are limited to 15mph in terms of assistance, certainly no more ‘dangerous’ than a normal bike.
All I ask is for a proportionate response, this isn’t one. If cycles are to be given the same rights & responsibilities as cars then I would like better protection in return; improved infrastructure, separation etc. Cars get roads, pedestrians get paths & cycles are just sandwiched in the middle.
It’s interesting that the Police are given guidance when dealing with pavement cycling, they can use discretion if the road alternative is deemed dangerous.
All I ask is for a proportionate response, this isn’t one. If cycles are to be given the same rights & responsibilities as cars then I would like better protection in return; improved infrastructure, separation etc. Cars get roads, pedestrians get paths & cycles are just sandwiched in the middle.
It’s interesting that the Police are given guidance when dealing with pavement cycling, they can use discretion if the road alternative is deemed dangerous.
Waxy
pfm Member
Legal e-bikes are limited. There are huge numbers of unlimited e-bikes operating in Bristol. Some of the motocross-style models are effectively electric motorbikes rather than electric bicycles. They are that fast.
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
If you stop at a red light in Italy, you run the risk of being rammed from behind. As I discovered. I learnt that the first two go through and then the next ones stop. A bit exciting when you are riding a motorbike.