cycle cop gets owned

diy

I cannot think of a scenario where it would be safer to jump a red on a cycle than it would say on a motorbike. Perhaps the only consideration could be the weight of the bike if it were to hit someone.

Unfortunately cycling is full of people who demand tough legislation and enforcement of motorists for things like speeding, keeping out of bus lanes and ASLs and default liability but seem to think its different when it comes to them jumping reds.

other road users get peed off by cyclists jumping reds. It takes 2 seconds to hop off and walk across the road if you cannot wait for green.

chez_m356

delcol wrote:

And if you do get hit by a big truck

blame wiggle...

what if your colour blind and cant tell what colour the light is. it looked green to me officer.

how would he even know what green was?

RyanMK43

Changing the subject a min but as we are all talking about laws and all the rest of it, whos right of way is it on a cycle path, a pedestrian or a guy on a bike??? People who moan at you for being on the "path" when clearly it is a cycle path do my head in!! Surely with all the little white bikes painted on the floor, the green tarmac and the nation route number on the sign post everywhere they must get a hint it's a cycle path

cooldad

Your's so just swear at the and then ride over them. The law is on your side.
Most my way are shared pavements with a pic of a bike and a peado (that's what it looks like anyway)


In which case you probably shouldn't ride over the kid - the paedo is probably ok.

diy

The term "right of way" has a different meaning in land law than it does in say the highway code and the relevant traffic signs and road traffic regulations. A cyclist may have "a right of way" on a footpath or cycle track if it was created within the bounds of the highways act or cycle tracks act which amended the former. Depending on how the highway authority enacted the right of way, it is possible for the cycle track to allow a right of way on a cycle, but no corresponding right of way on foot.

That does not mean the cyclist has a priority over the pedestrian. It simply means they will not be committing an offence (assuming the path is adjacent to a highway) or trespass (assuming it is not) by riding on the path.

This right of way cannot be translated in to priority, which is really what the Highway code (or more importantly the laws that underpin it) would call a right of way.

So you have a right of way, but the pedestrian still has priority, even if they don't have a right of way. Worth noting that personal injury liability are not the same for peds and cyclists, as they are for motor vehicles.

RyanMK43

Yeah some here are shared aswell. It's the people who just look at you biking towards them and not move over or say some thing when you go past fncking septic japs eyes. Now you say it about thoes signs yeah they do look a little bit dodgy donty they .

delcol

chez_m356 wrote:

delcol wrote:

And if you do get hit by a big truck

blame wiggle...

what if your colour blind and cant tell what colour the light is. it looked green to me officer.

how would he even know what green was?

thats it none of the lights were on they all the same colour to me..

It takes 2 seconds to hop off and walk across the road if you cannot wait for green.

what if the red man is on and not the green man, (assuming you can see him that is) wont this be against the law, jumping a red...

Chunkers1980

You shouldn't be looking at the men, just the road lights.

That's assuming you know what anything means, you can leagally ride a bike on he road leagally after you don't leave your house from birth for 20 years.

Northwind

I'm colourblind, but I can tell which lights are on and which are off, and you know which lights are which on the traffic lights.

Still, I reckon this is a perfect storm, spastic cop means mongo cyclist. Maybe we could just arrange for the two to kill each other next time and save everyone else the hassle.