Cyclists, accidents and the law

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.

Congo - Re: 'bicycle' You make irrelevant statements. Obviously not a fan of health and fitness. Stick to your couch/car.

Gainsborough

I understand what you are saying about oil however with respect, within the next 10 - 20 years most cars will be powered by electric or hydrogen.

The outdated contraption that is the bicycle can be consigned to the dustbin as far as I am concerned.

Congo, with respect, when the oil has ran out in 50 or a 100 years, there will be a lot more cycles on the roads, (some with trailers on the back to do the weekly shop)

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

Just been felled by a bikist in Swindon (I use the word bikist advisedly, a cyclist wouldn't be on the pavement). She looked astonished that there should be someone on foot on a pavement in central Swindon at 8.30 in the morning. I will be off to the hospital shortly as I seem to have some damage to my ribs.

Woodpunk

On a country road with a lot of bends there were two cyclists in their latest gear (to look flashy and professional) that remained two-abreast while holding traffic (cars) up which would back half a mile whereas had they gone into single file the traffic could have safely passed them.

They were aware of the queue of traffic building up but their arrogance shows they felt they were king of the road holding up the traffic. They wouldn't be if one of the motorists decided to take a chance to pass them and caught the outer one.

When I was cycling with a group we always filed out to let traffic pass since all we needed was space for one cycle, not like these two.

It should be illegal for cyclists to cycle two-abreast when doing so blocks the road for motorists to pass since they are encouraging accidents from frustrated motorists in return for the arrogance and disrespect they show towards motorists.

Why shouldn't cyclists have to be insured and have registration plates so that they can be identified when they break the law by cycling on the pavement?

They should also have to pass a proficiency test before they are allowed to cycle as many have no skills whatsoever.

Why do cyclists think that imperiously ringing their bell when they ride up behind someone on the pavement means that everyone should scurry out of their way?

Quite apart from the fact that they are illegally cycling on the pavement does it not occur to them that the person may be deaf? No, it doesn’t so they just scare the life out of them riding by at speed or just “clip” them any way and blame then for not getting out of their way.

Don’t you just love the way they use the word “clip” by the way? It sounds so trivial, almost friendly, when the words they should be using are hurt, frighten and injure.

You are 100% right in all respects. Ringing the bell you say.What bell? Take a look around and see how many bikes have a bell. As for ignoring traffic lights and pedestrian crossings, if motorists did they would soon end up in court. Then there are the good ones, in the majority I feel.

All road crashes should be treated with the seriousness they deserve. Have you ever looked at the sort of paltry excuses for punishment that get handed out to killers whose weapon of choice was their car? It would be laughable, were it not so tragic.

You may have lost count of the number of times you were 'nearly' injured by a cyclist, but how many times have you actually been injured? How many times have you 'nearly' been injured by a car. Far, far more deaths are due to motorists, and it doesn't help to bring up the tiny proportion caused by cyclists. The problem is, we've already accepted that cars kill, and view it as an unexceptional fact of life, in a different category to those caused by outrageous biking. This only goes to show quite how dangerous motoring actually is.

I'm a cyclist, driver and pedestrian. And in every one of these groups, I see stupid things being done. If the action is dumb and only impacts the perpetrator, no harm done. But in many, if not most such cases, someone else pays the price for another's inconsiderate behaviour. Car drivers parking on pavements and restricted zones. Pedestrians stepping out without looking or caring about theirs action, including pram pushers waiting at the kerb, with the pram/buggie hanging out over said kerb. Cyclists riding on pedestrianised areas, (including pavements, steps & underpasses). Each may make the same excuses:
"It's not doing any harm."
"It's easier that way."
"It's dangerous on the road/path, so I ride where it's safer."

But unseen/not bothered by the perpetrator/s, there is a harm, it's only easier for some and 'safer' for who? Whether the perpetrator knows or cares is not the problem. The problem, is that all to often such reasoning/actions, have a detrimental effect on the wellbeing of others.

And if the powers that be, are too weak willed to enforce what is just. I see no good way out for the innocent.