Cycling in London

All very agreeable, but what about this crazy thing that happens in Italy, where cyclists fined for whatever infraction are often also taken away points from their driving licence, even thought obviously no driving licence is required to ride a bycicle.
Does this nonsense happen in any other country on Earth ?

The "I run red lights on my bike *but*..." brigade are one of the reasons why I get so angry when trying to cross the road in Central London. I always behave myself as a pedestrian and keep to the pavements and wait for the signals but even when the green man comes out I have to double check in case some retard in lycra screams past shouting obcenities in my direction.

I have actually seen one of these imbeciles smack into a guy crossing the road who then took offence to this guy pushing him off of his bike and a fight ensued which was quite funny. Who was in the wrong? The cyclist for running the red light and earnt a bent frame for his troubles.

"In fact, if George pedalled on the way home then he could achieve quite a speed. This caught the attention of a Liverpool traffic policeman one evening and George was stopped by the policeman and prosecuted for breaking the speed limit on his bicycle!"

Cyclists cannot be prosecuted for speeding since speed limits only apply to motor-vehicles. (However, if it can be demonstrated that the cyclist exceeded the speed limit for motor-vehicles then that could be used to argue that the cyclist was riding dangerously. Or even guilty of "wanton or furious riding".)

During the trial a policeman stated that the collision had probably taken place on the road, close to the kerb, not on the pavement. The 17 year old girl had been drinking and this could have been a contributing factor in both the accident and the unfortunate outcome. It is unlikely that the cyclist would have been charged with "Causing death by dangerous cycling" even if it had existed at the time.
If the CCP had considered him more culpable then there were already laws in place that could have been used. They have been used in the past to successfully prosecute and jail dangerous cyclists. A new law is not needed. The proposal for a new law is populist rabble-rousing.

London's cyclists do not fit into two camps, both of whom want cycle-lanes. Many do not want cycle-lanes at all, whether they are green-painted bits of road, walled-off strips of gutter or shared-use pavements. Cyclists want to be safe but that is best achieved by enforcing existing laws rather than trying to separate (in theory, at least) motorized and non-motorized vehicles.

I remember a funny incident involving a work colleague who cycled to work every day in Liverpool back in the 1990s. The office was on the long stretch of dual carriageway between Netherton and a roundabout to the M57 and M58 motorways. The road had an incline on it for about 2 miles. So, George didn't need to pedal on the way home from work.

In fact, if George pedalled on the way home then he could achieve quite a speed. This caught the attention of a Liverpool traffic policeman one evening and George was stopped by the policeman and prosecuted for breaking the speed limit on his bicycle!

Lights are only advisory not prohibitive for pedestrians in the UK.
There is no crime of Jay walking either unless its on a motorway/freeway where is should be classed as suicide.

Funny to read all these comments from pedestrians so selflessly defending the rule of law. I was just walking home from the store (notice: I'm not wedded to my bike) when I stopped at a red light. One of my fellow pedestrians took it upon herself to walk - no: amble - though the red light. No checking for oncomming traffic. Not so much as a glance to either side. Nothing. When she got to the middle of the road, a car arrived. It had the green. The most she conceded was to wait until the car had stoppped so she could continue to jay-walk.

The relevance of this anecdote? Cyclists and drivers do not have a monopoly when it comes to making ignorant nuisances of themselves; pedestrians completely hold their own.

In this context, a much more intellectually honest solution would be to set up a network of cameras up to ticket everyone - drivers, cyclists and pedestrians - for breaking the rules of the road. I would personally chafe under such a pan-opticon system, but the burden would be lessened knowing I wasn't being singled out for my mode of transport and would resemble - albeit harshly - the the legal principle referenced in FFScotland's comment. (to whom h/t)

In short, if you are a pedestrian who really is without traffic-violation-sin, go ahead and cast the first stone. Otherwise, I remain skeptical.

Note to AmerEng readers: "pavement" = "sidewalk".

When I hear the "I run some red lights but.." (insert your favourite flimsy rationalization here), it honestly makes me cringe.

I'm with Bagehot here. Lord only knows it is fun enough trying to avoid motorized zombies already. Over the years I have been cutoff 3 times where I ended up hitting the offending vehicle. Oh and once I ran into a car on a roundabout when the driver decided checking for traffic before entering was optional.

Hence I want more respect from fellow road users, not less. The cyclo facist types who push through red lights and generally piss off other drivers are not helping. I say lock them up and confiscate their lycra :P

The constant refrain from bike-nutters: "Well, yes, I do violate traffic laws, but..."

And if if bothers you to subject yourself to traveling on the same roads as cars, then get off the road. No amount of car-driving courtesy can change the laws of physics - big beats small every time. If you choose to deal with that inequality, live with your choice.

I don't cycle any more, I rather prefer my scooter for getting around the city, with short term car rentals (e.g. Hertz Connect) for when I need a roof or more space.

But I don't think cyclists should follow all the rules of the road. I think they should be allowed to ride on the pavement, carefully, at safe speeds; allowed to at least turn left on a red, if not navigate a junction traffic island to island; and use pedestrian crossings, when doing so is much safer.

I advocate all these things in large part because there are very few affordances in both the rules and road layout for cyclists, and they need to take all the opportunities they can get to stay as safe as possible. I have very little patience for motorists who dislike cyclists on principle; at worst, it's usually teenage boys who take delight in riding in the middle of the road holding up traffic, but they're a rarity outside of suburban streets.

Scots Common Law has a useful catch-all offence of Culpable and reckless endangering of the public. That would cover this situation perfectly.

Bagehot how dare you speak about cycling, don't you realise that you know nothing about British cycling because you have spent the last few year being indoctrinated by the cobbles (ouch) and underpasses of Brussels! Your advocation of european cycling prove that any comments you make are not worth listening too.

Just thought I'd save freeborn John a job.

To get back on topic I believe cycling on the pavement is an offence if this was adequately policed, starting at the teenage level, maybe it would be safe for everybody to walk on the path. It mightbe an idea if riding on the path put 3 points on your driving licence. Most cyclists I know drive as well as cycle. No new law required just a new penalty and active policing.

By the way I do occasionally ride on the path when I'm cycling to get past a red light, I also speed in my car and occasionally park in an unsafe manner. All of which I know to be against the law if I killed somebody while doing so I would expect severe consequences,

I'm not a lawyer but if a death occurs while you are commiting a crime can't you be charged with murder?

There is "causing bodily harm by wanton or furious cycling under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861" (2 years maximum sentence), so it looks to be a bit of a waste of time having yet anotehr law for a rare event.

Having commuted by bike in the UK and Switzerland, I used to think that our quite formal business dress had something to do with it, because I often saw Swiss in business gear on bikes looking slightly windswept while in the UK most cyclists seem to be wearing dedicated sports gear and changing at work. But the Boris bikes have changed that (as has Boris himself I suppose - I spotted him coming over London Bridge on his bike a few weeks ago, suit on, hair flying in all directions, saddle charmingly set far too low so that he looked like a dad messing around on the bike of his 8 year old son).

As a frequent cyclist, including often in London, my sympathies are much with Bagehot. And indeed I do cope with sufficiently unfriendly London junctions (Marble Arch, say, on the way from Pall Mall to Marylebone) by 'becoming a pedestrian' - which means dismounting.

But Bagehot should have checked the original story - the problem was that a [very] reckless cyclist could only be given a modest fine for killing someone (apparently). This may be very rare but it does seem to be an injustice worthy of correction - how would you feel if it had been your kid?

Gosh, "showy new law" sounds a bit Blairite.

Surely one of the more effective ways of making cycling less tribal would be to mandate riding in traffic as part of the driving test as described here http://bikeaware.org.uk.

A new generation of drivers would be more disposed to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. Less fear of traffic would encourage more new cyclists on to the road, whilst helping to legitimise cycling as a natural transport choice.

Eco-smugness is not the only (or the main) reason why cyclists break the law. As SquareLatin notes, the law is designed for cars - and not just in California. This lawmaking is understandable, but then so is the disobedience. Bikes are not just eco-friendly, they are also narrow, this means there are many places where they cause no obstruction even though a car would (e.g. most one-way streets and left turns at traffic lights).

When the law of the land looks like an absurd medieval superstition cyclists will make up their own law, and irresponsible ones will kill people. Better for the law to catch up with the realities of cycling.

As I prepare for my daily cycle from Richmond to Westminster, one thought occurs to me. There is a third group, which the Boris Bikes have added to - cyclists that barely know how to cycle.

They come out whenever the weather is glorious, and as you wait patiently at a red light, they are likely to come up alongside beofore plonking their bike in front of you (if they wait at all), forcing you to overtake them as they wobble off in the middle of the road at 2mph. They are a menace, just as much as the aggressive ones (who aren't all eco-activists - many seem to be racing-bike nerds).

Prehaps pedestrains should have "I'll drive a 4x4 - next time" T-shirts?

Its being buzzed on the pavement by some idiot who descieded to pop out of the traffic for a moment that is the reason for the law - plenty of near misses where the fast moving cyclist is the larger threatening vechile.