What you can be fined for

notsoblue

Great article at London Cyclist http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/features/cyclist-fined/

The law and cycling have always had a tough relationship. On one hand cyclists are road users and therefore should follow the rules of the road like everyone else. On the other if a cyclist doesn’t follow the rules the consequences are likely to be less severe simply considering the size of a bike versus that of a car. The rules are there to make using the UK’s roads a more safe and enjoyable experience yet in recent times a lack of clear definitions and revisions to provide for the increase in cycling have left people frustrated.

Just look at the difficulty James Randerson from the Guardian recently had in discovering whether cars in advanced stop boxes were breaking the law. He had to go through 3 different government departments before getting the answer. In the end he discovered it is illegal and carries 3 points on your licence and a £60 fine....

It then goes on to list the various fines for common cycle indiscretions.

This is an interesting one; "Taking part in an unauthorised race and carrying passengers". Could it be that SCR is breaking the law? :P

EKE_38BPM

I would say that SCR is exempt as there is no organised competition, no official competitors, no start or end point, no indepentent officials and no prizes.

Doesn't mean it doesn't feel good to win though!

As for passengers, I don't think I've given anyone a backie for at least 20 years, but where do rickshaws come under the law? They are cycles, but are designed to take passengers?

Clever Pun

SCR: It's not a race...

neiltb

the first rule of SCR, etc

biondino

Fines and punishments for cyclists are self-evidently too low because so many cyclists commit offences.

SimonAH

A British Transport Police anchor tried to fine me thirty quid the other day for cycling on the pavement outside Newport Station. By cycling on the pavement read "stationary on the bike waiting for the green man to appear so that I can cross the road and cycle ON the road in the opposite direction after cycling ON the road to get to the crossing" Jumped up little prat. :twisted:

plowmar

Oh dear, you do know that it is illegal to ride on a pedestrian crossing don't you ?

That is what you implied you were going to do.

gaz545

plowmar wrote:

Oh dear, you do know that it is illegal to ride on a pedestrian crossing don't you ?

That is what you implied you were going to do.

unless it is a toucan crossing, but then there is a little green bicycle light.

Clever Pun

biondino wrote:

Fines and punishments for cyclists are self-evidently too low because so many cyclists commit offences.

same can be said for any crime being commited though... people still do it even though there are consequences

biondino

Yeah, but if 1% of people commit burglary and 50% of cyclists run red lights, so the disincentives for burglary are obviously much more effective.

Clever Pun

biondino wrote:

Yeah, but if 1% of people commit burglary and 50% of cyclists run red lights, so the disincentives for burglary are obviously much more effective.

Or... running a red light isn't deemed as serious and doesn't have a victim (in the eyes of the rlj'er)... so people think no harm no foul?

I assume those numbers have zero merit...

biondino

Clever Pun wrote:

biondino wrote:

Yeah, but if 1% of people commit burglary and 50% of cyclists run red lights, so the disincentives for burglary are obviously much more effective.

Or... running a red light isn't deemed as serious and doesn't have a victim (in the eyes of the rlj'er)... so people think no harm no foul?

I assume those numbers have zero merit...

Exactly. If people deem no harm and they're not punished, then they're going to do it. If they are punished then they may think it's unfair but they're less likely to do it, see what I mean?

downfader

Clever Pun wrote:

biondino wrote:

Fines and punishments for cyclists are self-evidently too low because so many cyclists commit offences.

same can be said for any crime being commited though... people still do it even though there are consequences

And people still commit murder around the world despite the various death penalties. :?

bails87

It tends to be the chance of getting caught, not the severity of the punishment that affects people's decision making.

How many people deliberately speed past a sped camera, where (assuming it's on, they're the registered keeper etc) there's a 100% chance of a small punishment.

But then how many people commit murder or other crimes that could lead to life in prison/death penalty in some places. Much more serious penalty, but people still do it because they think they'll get away with it.

I guess it's the same with RLJing. If the 'bike police' were at the lights, very few regular RLJers would jump the red light, assuming they saw the police and knew what they were up to, whether it was a telling off, a £30 fine or a week in jail as punishment.

The Rookie

Fixed penalty for RLJ is £60, and yes a £30 for riding on the pavement.

While I agree with discretion by the Police, I do think we need a lot of clamping down on a lot of errant cyclists, I see some dreadful examples, including a 60 something YO women I watched jump to RL's yesterday!

Simon

bicyclepirate

biondino wrote:

Yeah, but if 1% of APPLES commit burglary and 50% of ORANGES run red lights, so the disincentives for burglary are obviously much more effective.

Wow worst stat of the day! You can't compare apples and oranges. as for disincentives i wonder what the number of people killed in the commision of a burglary was this year as compared.........

stumpy4ever

i presume at some point shortly we'll have the leather clad police officers telling everyone on the boris bike scheme to "walk your bike" and metering out petty fines since 95% of the stations are actually on pavements.

biondino

bicyclepirate wrote:

biondino wrote:

Yeah, but if 1% of APPLES commit burglary and 50% of ORANGES run red lights, so the disincentives for burglary are obviously much more effective.

Wow worst stat of the day! You can't compare apples and oranges. as for disincentives i wonder what the number of people killed in the commision of a burglary was this year as compared.........

You didn't understand. The only relevant point is that there are obviously not enough deterrents for cyclists, whereas there are enough (or nearly enough) deterrents for burglars. That's why way more people RLJ, say, than nick stuff, even though getting free stuff is pretty much a universal desire.

Nerrep

biondino wrote:

bicyclepirate wrote:

biondino wrote:

Yeah, but if 1% of APPLES commit burglary and 50% of ORANGES run red lights, so the disincentives for burglary are obviously much more effective.

Wow worst stat of the day! You can't compare apples and oranges. as for disincentives i wonder what the number of people killed in the commision of a burglary was this year as compared.........

You didn't understand. The only relevant point is that there are obviously not enough deterrents for cyclists, whereas there are enough (or nearly enough) deterrents for burglars. That's why way more people RLJ, say, than nick stuff, even though getting free stuff is pretty much a universal desire.

I'm pretty certain it's not. I don't nick stuff because there are compelling ethical reasons not too. I occasionally cycle through red lights because it doesn't harm anyone.

invincible

biondino wrote:

Yeah, but if 1% of people commit burglary and 50% of cyclists run red lights, so the disincentives for burglary are obviously much more effective.

stats can be made to claim anything....

what if 50% of thieves commit burglary & 1% of people rlj, the disincentives for rlj are obviously much more effective

snailracer

I went to Barcelona recently.

There is a 180-to-900 Euro fine for urinating in the street.

There is a 30 Euro fine for a cyclist hitting a ped on a pavement. As far as I could tell, there is no fine for simply cycling on the pavement, which loads of cyclists were doing.