Bike Law

Wallace1492

OK, what rules/laws would make cycling safer/quicker/more fun. Kick off with:

1. Any accident between a mororised vehicle and a cycle, the vehicle is automatically at fault
2. Bicycles need not stop at red lights
3. Cyclists doing more than 4,000 miles per year may get Tax Refund on all beer/wine purchases.

bails87

Mandatory distance to be left when motor vehicles overtake bikes?
Food stops to be provided by the local council on my commute?

DonDaddyD

This thread will become interesting.

Personally,

In Cities:

All pedestrian crossings, with the exception of Zebra's, should have an ASL. At (complex) junctions and where it is impossible or imrpractical for an ASL to be present then cyclists are allowed to stop at the other side of the crossing but not ride across the junction during a red light.

I like the Tax refund idea. How do your prove it?

MonkeyMonster

all cyclists have to be tested for acceleration capabilities and provided colour coded bibs/jerseys. Only those in green are allowed in the ASL.

CiB

DonDaddyD wrote:

I like the Tax refund idea. How do your prove it?

In the only sane and sensible way. By reference to The Truth, aka Stats. I claim my rebate now.

Good rules? All drivers to be given a one-off 10% reduction in VED in return for attending a cycle-aware course (run by me ideally) to give them an idea of what it's like to ride a bike, why we do it, why we're not all bonkers and in return why drivers are not all belligerent murderers, thereby generating a peace between the two overlapping subsets of society.

Wallace1492

Any vehicle encroaching the ASL will be summarilly scrapped by a nearby ED209 unit. All access points to ASL to be kept clear.

Re tax - Government issued Cycle Computer that cannot be tampered with. Hand it in at end of year for refund. the higher the mileage, the higher the refund.

Quick reaction pothole filling/drain fixing/spillage cleaning squad on standby to sort out hazards on main cycle commuter routes.

t4tomo

Cycles to be allowed to filter left on red lights.

Motorcyles who filter up the centre of the road to the ASL and then attempt to turn left in front of all the bikes should spontaneously explode.

jonny_trousers

More cycle specific light phasing at junctions - cyclists being given a 5 second advantage at tricky junctions over other vehicles, for example.

Clear helmetcam footage of dangerous driving being taken seriously by the law and prosecutions made based on them (I don't use a helmetcam, but would if the above happened).

Tighter stipulations over who is actually allowed to take part in the 'naked cycle ride'. :shock:

The Running Man

Cyclists should be allowed to carry rocket propelled grenades mounted on the handlebars


(optional on chainstays for retrospective justice)

nation

I'm a fan of presumed liability in the event of accidents, as exists on the continent. Basically it states that the driver of a larger vehicle has a greater duty of care than the driver/rider of a smaller vehicle or a pedestrian.

So, cyclists have a greater duty if care towards pedestrians then vice versa, car drivers have a greater duty of care towards cyclists than vice versa, HGVs have a greater duty of care towards cat drivers than vice versa, etc.

I don't like the suggestion that cyclists should never be held at fault, since it's perfectly self-evident that it's possible for a cyclist to cause an accident.

I also think cyclists should be permitted to treat red lights as "give way", and more ASLs would help with this. It would reduce conflicts between filtering riders and drivers pulling away from junctions, while still being able to penalise those that simply shoot through junctions regardless.

rick_chasey

Cyclists have right of way over all traffic in all situations, except motorways!

Paul E

nation wrote:

I'm a fan of presumed liability in the event of accidents, as exists on the continent. Basically it states that the driver of a larger vehicle has a greater duty of care than the driver/rider of a smaller vehicle or a pedestrian.

So, cyclists have a greater duty if care towards pedestrians then vice versa, car drivers have a greater duty of care towards cyclists than vice versa, HGVs have a greater duty of care towards cat drivers than vice versa, etc.

I don't like the suggestion that cyclists should never be held at fault, since it's perfectly self-evident that it's possible for a cyclist to cause an accident.

I also think cyclists should be permitted to treat red lights as "give way", and more ASLs would help with this. It would reduce conflicts between filtering riders and drivers pulling away from junctions, while still being able to penalise those that simply shoot through junctions regardless.

I beleive in Holland if as a pedestrian you walk into a cyclist or cause a cyclist to swerve and fall off etc etc it's the peds fault, I would like to see that here.

bails87

Paul E wrote:

I beleive in Holland if as a pedestrian you walk into a cyclist or cause a cyclist to swerve and fall off etc etc it's the peds fault, I would like to see that here.

That would be the same here wouldn't it?

notsoblue

bails87 wrote:

Paul E wrote:

I beleive in Holland if as a pedestrian you walk into a cyclist or cause a cyclist to swerve and fall off etc etc it's the peds fault, I would like to see that here.

That would be the same here wouldn't it?

I can confirm that that isn't the case here.

Rule74Please

A ban on hi viz on bikes.

ooermissus

All new public buildings and larger offices have to provide secure bike storage.

rick_chasey

Paul E wrote:

nation wrote:

I'm a fan of presumed liability in the event of accidents, as exists on the continent. Basically it states that the driver of a larger vehicle has a greater duty of care than the driver/rider of a smaller vehicle or a pedestrian.

So, cyclists have a greater duty if care towards pedestrians then vice versa, car drivers have a greater duty of care towards cyclists than vice versa, HGVs have a greater duty of care towards cat drivers than vice versa, etc.

I don't like the suggestion that cyclists should never be held at fault, since it's perfectly self-evident that it's possible for a cyclist to cause an accident.

I also think cyclists should be permitted to treat red lights as "give way", and more ASLs would help with this. It would reduce conflicts between filtering riders and drivers pulling away from junctions, while still being able to penalise those that simply shoot through junctions regardless.

I beleive in Holland if as a pedestrian you walk into a cyclist or cause a cyclist to swerve and fall off etc etc it's the peds fault, I would like to see that here.

The bike has priority over everything.

T junctions, the lot.

Only instance bikes don't are zebra crossings.

They can even turn right through red lights if they don't cross any traffic.

jamesco

nation wrote:

I'm a fan of presumed liability in the event of accidents, as exists on the continent. Basically it states that the driver of a larger vehicle has a greater duty of care than the driver/rider of a smaller vehicle or a pedestrian.

+1

Pedestrians < cyclists < motorcyclists < cars < 4WD < trucks

Also, ban 4WDs from being registered anywhere within the M25.

alansd1980

This is going to be a controversial one...

All cyclists who commute on major roads, for example the cycle superhighways, should have to attend some kind of training. Similar to the CBT for scooters and motorbikes.
I am sure this would reduce the number of accidents massively. The number of cyclists I see down by the road getting attended to by paramedics is rapidly increasing.

meanredspider

Bicycles ALWAYS have right of way on single track roads even if it means cars reversing to the previous passing spot - EXCEPT if the cyclist is going up a steep hill and is looking for an excuse for a quick breather...

Bus drivers must commute to work on bikes.

In China, BTW, it used to be the law that car drivers had no responsibility to avoid peds or cyclists. When I lived there, you could see that the (then new) law that they should avoid hitting them hadn't really quite sunk in...

Kieran_Burns

The Running Man wrote:

Cyclists should be allowed to carry rocket propelled grenades mounted on the handlebars


(optional on chainstays for retrospective justice)

If you watched Mythbusters on Monday night you'd see that mounting fully automatic paintball guns would suffice.

I *have* a fully automatic paintball gun (well it is when I turn one teeny tiny screw clockwise) and can confirm when it's firing 16 paintballs a second, it's fecking scary.

Imagine how differently my last video would've been if I'd had that strapped to the handlebars

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

..... At (complex) junctions and where it is impossible or imrpractical for an ASL to be present then cyclists are allowed to stop at the other side of the crossing but not ride across the junction during a red light.

...

Why would you want to stop AFTER the crossing?

spen666

nation wrote:

I'm a fan of presumed liability in the event of accidents, as exists on the continent. Basically it states that the driver of a larger vehicle has a greater duty of care than the driver/rider of a smaller vehicle or a pedestrian.

So, cyclists have a greater duty if care towards pedestrians then vice versa, car drivers have a greater duty of care towards cyclists than vice versa, HGVs have a greater duty of care towards cat drivers than vice versa, etc.

I don't like the suggestion that cyclists should never be held at fault, since it's perfectly self-evident that it's possible for a cyclist to cause an accident.

I also think cyclists should be permitted to treat red lights as "give way", and more ASLs would help with this. It would reduce conflicts between filtering riders and drivers pulling away from junctions, while still being able to penalise those that simply shoot through junctions regardless.

i have an interesting image in my mind

chilling

Cyclists who want to ride on the road must pass the driving theory test.

When the police occasionally blitz RLJ's, have them do this at lights that have an ASL and blitz those offenders as well.

Kieran_Burns

chilling wrote:

Cyclists who want to ride on the road must pass the driving theory test.

When the police occasionally blitz RLJ's, have them do this at lights that have an ASL and blitz those offenders as well.

To be honest, I think that there is some mileage in this idea - but only applicable to cyclists over the age of 17 (same as driving)

I can't see it being practical though, but the idea does seem sound.

rick_chasey

chilling wrote:

Cyclists who want to ride on the road must pass the driving theory test.

.

Pretty f*cked if you're a 15yr old roadie then.

I like to think I passed my test so easily because I had already spent a lot of time on the road on my bike.

You can't have stuff like that if there is no infrastructure to provide alternatives.

A load of 16yr olds tearing down pavements isn't ideal either.

In short, I recon that's sh!t.

alansd1980

or you could just allow people under 17 to sit the test for this reason....

Wallace1492

Rick Chasey wrote:

chilling wrote:

Cyclists who want to ride on the road must pass the driving theory test.

.

Pretty f*cked if you're a 15yr old roadie then.

I like to think I passed my test so easily because I had already spent a lot of time on the road on my bike.

You can't have stuff like that if there is no infrastructure to provide alternatives.

A load of 16yr olds tearing down pavements isn't ideal either.

In short, I recon that's sh!t.

Did someone say there is an age limit to it? Not looking for the age of driving to be lowered.....

notsoblue

I feel that people who call for cyclists to be licensed are really missing the point...

bails87

So if you don't have a license you can ride on the pavement?

alansd1980

Not all cyclists and not a license but some some of assesment on all cycle to work bikes wouldnt be a bad idea as these people are clearly going to be travelling at rush hour on busy roads. Allowing people to travel at speed in city centres without any training is crazy.