Cyclists, accidents and the law

I didn't say all cyclists either, I said that the badly behaved minority cause the decent ones who are in the majority to be looked on in an unkind light, which is unfair. Therefore motorists tend to largely treat them all the same way. So long as you are a responsible law abiding cyclist I cannot see that it should matter what sort of bike you ride quite frankly. All motorists want is for cyclists to obey the law and behave sensibly.
the above is what I meant when I said that we should not tar them all with the same brush, and that every group has its bad apples who give the rest a bad name.

The Drivers Hero - I didn't say all cyclists, just some. My friend has one of those bikes where the saddle is quite high and he has arm rests as part of the handlebars (not too technical here), so the riding position is very much head down. He loves going out with his cycling club mates, but admits he doesn't see too much of the scenery.

Another thing I see regularly in the city of dreaming spires is people on bicycles riding the wrong way down Queen street during the day time. Then there are cyclists who I see riding around with both hands in their pockets, no hands on the handlebars, this is really dangerous. A lot of cyclists in Oxford fail to look behind them before turning, or changing lane, either.

Your really being serious about the fact these cyclists only look Ten Feet in front of them?! I am shocked, that is a serious eye opener, I had no idea about that one, well I do now.
I would certainly agree with Alf Reds last point, there are indeed some nice sensible careful cyclists out there among all the others, we shouldn't tar them all with the same brush, every group or community has its bad apples who give the rest a bad name.
Alf Red raises an interesting point about the issue of whether parents should be insured against damage done by their children. But then parents should be responsible for their childrens actions anyway. Its a parents duty to teach their child manners, and discipline and courtesy, this is especially pertinent to using the road safely and sensibly.
Maybe if the Police served out tickets more regularly to cyclists and not just token gesture ones during the winter campaign, everyone might just learn something.

The Drivers Hero - I agree with you 100% - and this would be fine for adult cyclists, but what about the children who regularly ride out on the streets? Maybe their parents should be insured against any damage they do, then the parents might take cycle training seriously. Regarding those cyclists who ride too close and scrape cars - remember Roman Chariots, with those blades coming out of the wheels? To any other cyclists, I do have a bike. I ride it on the road only, in pedestrian areas I get off and push it, I never ride close to cars just in case a door gets opened in front of me and I'm well aware that I have to obey the traffic signs and road markings. Oh, if it became compulsary to wear lycra, I'd give up cycling. I did know two cyclists who were of the type you described - funnily enough, neither of them had a car.
My job used to involve dealing with personal injury claims and through that I discovered that many serious cyclists don't look at the road any further than about 10ft in front of them. One guy unfortunately got ki11ed when he cycled into a broken down car which he should have seen from 1/2 mile away and another was injured when he came off on loose grit which again could be seen from a couple of hundred yards away - he admitted that he usually just looks at the road just in front of his front wheel.
I wouldn't knock all cyclists, there's some really nice, careful ones out there - then there's the idiots.

I have to say I am with Julie and GOW on this one, I seem to remember that schools did use to do proficiency testing, back in the days when the Police used to visit the schools regularly, and there was more respect for and fear of the law.
Oxford cyclists it has to be said are an absolute law unto themselves, I live there so I should know, from regular experience of them, in the city of dreaming spires we have a lot of self righteous cyclists including sadly Mr Styring of Cyclox, who is a right on roof banger and paint scraper type, and he is a rampant defender of the lycra clad dayglow brigade. We have cyclists who specialise in dressing darkly in winter so you can barely see them in the dark, we have those who give no arm signals and could be going anywhere, and you are reduced to guessing their direction. We have those who ride on a mixture of pavement and road and who also don't stop at traffic lights. We also have those who ride more than two abreast across magdalen bridge during the rush hour delaying absolutely everybody else. Then we also have those who ride everywhere with Ipod ear phones in making them deaf and dumb to what is going on around them, completely oblivious to danger. And we have those who ride around at night without lights of any type. And then there are the inconsiderate cyclists who refuse to use cycle racks where they are provided. Then there are cyclists who love cycling through pedestrian alley ways oblivious to the law to dismount.

Then lets simply legislate cyclists off the public roads altogether. Make lights on bicycles mandatory front and rear, lets have mandatory reflectors on the wheels and spacer flags for young children, and make it totally compulsory that they should wear helmets.
Cyclists who don't make themselves visible, and who don't wear either reflective sashes or reflective jackets should be prosecuted with the full force of the law. Make it compulsory for them to do basic training before they are allowed to take to the road. Maybe cyclists should have to carry drivers license and insurance documents and have registration numbers on their bikes. Any cyclist who fails to conform to the law should be banned from cycling and have their bicycle crushed. Maybe cyclists should be made to submit their bicycles for twice yearly MOTs, and maybe before the age of 18 you should be restricted to certain types of bicycle with a restricted number of gears on them.

Cycling England, which promotes cycling but doesn't seem to actually produce anything other than reports has a ring fenced budget of £60 million pounds a year.

The London Taxicard scheme which subsidises taxi travel for seriously disabled people has undergone savage cuts because this government says it costs too much. It currently costs £19.2 million a year.

Well DSG, I hope those lamp-posts have got good insurance!

This proposal by Cycling England in scandalous. I wonder if motorists and their insurance companies would be able to sue cyclists in the civil court for their insurance payouts if there was proof available that the cyclist was to blame?

Mind you, they are their own worst enemies. In 2006/7, the last year for which comprehensive figures are available, some 13,368 cyclists were admitted to English hospitals. A comparatively small proportion, 1,873, were injured by cars or vans, and only 129 by lorries and buses. 208 cyclists collided with ... other cyclists (ah, bless!) while 89 crashed into people or animals.  But an enormous number, 9,191, were injured in incidents that involved no other vehicles at all. In other words, they were so stupid or so inexperienced or so senile or so drunk that they just fell off. And here's the lulu - 518 of them hit stationary objects! You know, these lamp-posts that lurk with sinister intent along every roadside just jumped out and hit them...

Cycling England's new idea is to make motorists legally responsible for all accidents involving cyclists, even if they are not at fault. They propose that civil law be changed so drivers or their insurers would automatically be liable for compensation claims.  The proposal is modelled on regulations in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany, which are heavily skewed in favour of cyclists. Even in cases where a crash results from illegal or dangerous manoeuvres by the cyclist, the motorist is usually blamed. The motorist is always legally responsible for any crash involving a child or elderly cyclist, even if they are cycling in the wrong direction, ignoring traffic signals, or otherwise flouting traffic regulations.  As well as cyclists, pedestrians would also be assumed not to be at fault in civil law if hit by a car. The 'most powerful vehicle' involved in a crash would automatically be liable. Where a cyclist was hit by a car, the presumption of blame would fall on the driver.

The place where any excess of grey matter would be an absolute handicap is in the field of campaigning about cycling. And never has this been more clearly exemplified than by an announcement by Cycling England, a pressure group funded by the government.  At this point I think I should make clear that Cycling England (the pressure group that aims to make us all sell our cars and ride bikes thus causing us to (a) starve because we can't reach the shops because Tesco opened up in the local town and all the local retailers had to close, and (b) starve because there is no public transport that will enable us to reach our work 40 miles away), is not the same thing as Recycling England, the group that aims to eradicate every English habit, every English virtue, every English characteristic, and every piece of English power and influence. No, Recycling England is a different bunch altogether. They're often known to the rest of us as New Labour.

Generalist - you seem to have a problem with reading the title of a gripe. This one is about cyclists not motorists.

You only argument is always the same. Motorists are so awful, so dangerous that we don't need to bother with cyclists who break the law. Try sticking to the subject for once or start your own gripe about car drivers.

Now the killer fact: In the UK, providing your child doesn’t have an inherited / genetically based disease (congenital defects, child cancers, etc), then the thing that is most likely to kill them, most likely to stop you becoming a grandparent, and most likely to stop them reaching their full adult potential . . . is still a road traffic incident.
Source at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/hsq/HSQ28_death.pdf

Julie,
I'm surprised you didn't bring up the subject of a fish licence.

http://tinyurl.com/FishLicence

Julie,
There are a number countries where cyclists need to be registered and carry registration plates, but the number of schemes is dwindling and most have been scrapped. The problem is the schemes just don't work in the way proponents believe and expect.

What would be the point of such a registration scheme? Surely, the purpose of the Law is primarily to protect the public.
There is overwhelming evidence that cycling is healthy and that increased cycling levels benefit the individuals who cycle, pedestrians can expect reduced casualty rates and the wider population benefits in numerous ways from lowered pollution levels. Pollution from traffic kills far more people than die in traffic collisions.

There is substantial evidence that registration schemes [compulsory helmet laws too] discourage cycling participation. Lowered cycling levels lead to increased driving levels, increased pedestrian and cyclist casualties. Plus the benefits from cycling are substantially reduced.

Cyclist Registration Schemes don't work
Let's say you see a motorist using a phone, jump a red light, or driving on the pavement. You go to the Police with the number. What will the Police do? The answer is: Nothing will be done.

The TfL Boris Bikes each carry a prominent number and it isn't working to trace cyclists either.
A Freedom of Information request, Transport for London were asked: How many Boris Bike users have been reported as transgressors of any sort?

“TfL has received two reports that a third party has contacted the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme contact centre about the behaviour of scheme members.”

Were the bike numbers were used to trace the riders?

“The bicycle serial numbers were not reported,” said TfL.

Your 'cyclists should be registered' is just an ill-informed anti-cyclist rant, isn't it?

http://tinyurl.com/BikeRegistrationBoris

Congo
"The bicycle is a primitive, uncomfortable and wholly awful form of transport that really should have disappeared from use many years ago."

Your obvious fact-free smugness is rather demolished by the fact that bicycles are so awful that they are the most energy efficient means of transport known, considerably more efficient than even walking. The benefits of cycling are numerous and like other forms of exercise, have numerous health benefits.

The case of Rhiannon Bennett's death caused by Jason Howard is a tragedy, although the whole truth seems more complex than reported by the typically anti-cyclist media.

Fortunately pedestrian deaths caused by cyclists are unusual and very unusual on the pavement.
However, the same cannot be said for deaths caused by motorists. I feel sure that Howard deserved at least the punishment he received, but often the punishment for a motorist causing death is often much lower than the punishment meted-out to Howard. If Howard was treated too leniently, then what about the other 820 pedestrians ki11ed by motor vehicles on the pavement / verge over the last eleven years? And that ignores the cyclists ki11ed by motorists.

Pedestrian casualties averaged per year over 1998-2008
Motor vehicles
Killed 745
Killed on pavement* 74.5

Bicycles
Killed 2.73
Killed on pavement* 0.273

* In 2007 & 2008 10% of pedestrian casualties were on the pavement / verge. It is assumed the same percentage also holds for 1998-2006

Have you run out of current gripes, to be digging back over 3 years?

I am a cyclist. I am also a motorist. I spend more time riding my bike than I do driving my car.
I wear a helmet when riding, use lights when appropriate, ride on the road, obey traffic signals and try to be vigilant at all times. I consider myself to be a good cyclist. Most motorists appear to appreciate a decent cyclist when they see one. In my experience the majority of motorists are considerate towards me, perhaps a reflection of my responsible approach to cycling. Obviously there is the occasional idiot, but you can say that about anything.
The problem is that riding a bike doesn't make you a "cyclist".An lot of people, particularly young males (surprise surprise) tear around on bicycles without any sense of responsibility.I am all in favour of a Draconian approach to penalising cyclists who ride on footpaths. It would have to be shown that the cyclist was deliberately using the path to cycle on but it’s worth a go. As for jumping red lights, then if they're caught in the act, fine them, just like motorists. If not, get over it, plenty of motorists jump red lights and don't get caught.
As for the comments by "congo" re bikes being consigned to the scrapbin, or cycling being a primitive, uncomfortable way to travel - I can't help thinking this is posted by someone for whom physical activity is a dirty concept. Not only is my bike a state of the art piece of carbon fibre technology which would make most of todays cars look dated by comparison, it is comfortable to ride, keeps me fit, and allows me to travel for nothing as far and as frequently as I wish to. I ride to and from work, bypassing Congo and his mates all sat in a traffic jam going nowhere fast, literally throwing money away as their car eats up fuel while not actually moving anywhere. And I pay road tax as well. Occasional driving is a necessity and can be a pleasure; consant recourse to a car when there are more environmentally friendly & less expensive options available is a mug's game.