Motorists could face £100 fine for driving too close to cyclists

[Wilko]

London turning into the murder capital yet police have the resources to sit on double decker buses looking for people on their phone.

Couldn't agree more. People on their phone usually don't give much grief and the Service has had the stuffing kicked out of it.

 

[Wilko]

It's interesting that they reckon it's better to say a distance. I treat them as if they are a car and only overtake when there is a whole lane space available. If you were 1.5m away (hang on, let me get my laser measure out ...) it must be less safe?

 

[Spoon]

The fine should also apply to cyclists who put themselves less than 1.5 mtrs away from a vehicle, that'll stop them squeezing down the sides of cars at traffic lights, or lorries and then surprise surprise, getting crushed.

You would think so but again, it won't happen.
It's just another ill thought out plan.

 

[Nigel]

London turning into the murder capital yet police have the resources to sit on double decker buses looking for people on their phone.

These sort of initiatives are usually carried out by Special Constables that give their time for free and have full police powers.

You need not worry about resources.

 

[Squid]

London turning into the murder capital yet police have the resources to sit on double decker buses looking for people on their phone.

The Police get free travel on public transport think of the savings one less Police car on the road............

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I applaud any action taken by the Police to crack down on mobile phone use while driving.
Hands free kits are cheap as chips, they virtually give them away at some petrol stations now.
There’s no excuse for not using one.

 

[JAWS]

These sort of initiatives are usually carried out by Special Constables that give their time for free and have full police powers.

You need not worry about resources.

 

[Squid]

When I am on my bike I like to wind electricians up by asking them if they can remember Ohm's law when they are stuck in traffic.

 

[littlespark]

Its not just a city problem.
I welcome this proposal, but as suggested, reckless cyclists should be brought to book as well
I cycle around the rural roads and have to be out from the side to miss the potholes.
One day a bus was approaching me, and a car tried to overtake me.
I saw the bus drivers face as he tried to slow down.
Wing mirror missed me by about 3 inches

What I should have done was took a mental note of the car's number and took a controlled dive off the bike....

Where there's blame there's a claim.

 

[sparkdog]

They usually do the "wobble out" trick just as you are passing.

 

[nick00]

yes, because they can't take their licence away. thay ain't go one. and besides. compulsory insurance for cyclists should be introduced.

I know this is while ago, but I don't understand why you'd want people using bikes to be required to hold insurance when most adult cyclists already have insurance. Cyclists are considered so low risk that insurance is usually free with their home contents insurance, or you van get bespoke policies for next to nothing.

Used as transport, riding a bike does not present substantial risk to people or property, which is what compulsory insurance is designed to mitigate.

By forcing people to have insurance, you are probably going to make cycling less attractive, which is not a good thing as cycling is greatly beneficial to society.

So, why exactly do you want this to happen?

Cheers,
Nick.

 

[telectrix]

I know this is while ago, but I don't understand why you'd want people using bikes to be required to hold insurance when most adult cyclists already have insurance. Cyclists are considered so low risk that insurance is usually free with their home contents insurance, or you van get bespoke policies for next to nothing.

Used as transport, riding a bike does not present substantial risk to people or property, which is what compulsory insurance is designed to mitigate.

By forcing people to have insurance, you are probably going to make cycling less attractive, which is not a good thing as cycling is greatly beneficial to society.

So, why exactly do you want this to happen?

Cheers,
Nick.

supposing i swerve to avoid a cyclist who has just pulled across in front of me, and in doing so collide with another vehicle or pedestrian. the cyclist has caused the accident, but i would have any claim that arose made against me and my insurers. plus any damage to my own vehicle, loss of earnings, etc. could financially cripple me, all because some bike rider wasn't insured.

 

[littlespark]

What if a pedestrian walks out in front of you and you have to swerve?

some cyclists are stupid, I know.
if I pass one in the car, I wait, and pass on the other side of the road as I would with another car.
If there are two cyclists side by side, you can’t give the recommended space.

I was out on my bike last week for the first time this year, and same thing happened to me as it did in #24.... but nothing coming the other way. The car could have been right out, but decided to force me into the potholes.

let’s not split the country over cars vs bikes.... had enough with leave vs remain

 

[nick00]

supposing i swerve to avoid a cyclist who has just pulled across in front of me, and in doing so collide with another vehicle or pedestrian. the cyclist has caused the accident, but i would have any claim that arose made against me and my insurers. plus any damage to my own vehicle, loss of earnings, etc. could financially cripple me, all because some bike rider wasn't insured.

Well, the law would say that you were driving without due care. When driving around in thousands of kgs of steel, at elevated speeds, the onus is upon the driver to keep everybody else safe, and this means driving to the conditions. People on bikes are usually only a few kilos and on flimsy bike frames doing

If I approach a cyclist, or other vulnerable road user while I am in the car, I slow down, I expect that they may change course suddenly or without warning and I wait for a safe place to overtake.

As I said before, Used as transport, riding a bike does not present substantial risk to people or property, which is what compulsory insurance is designed to mitigate. If you drive carefully around vulnerable users then you probably will never have a problem.

However, if you do find your car damaged by someone on a bike, their home contents insurance, bespoke policy or, if they were on their way to or from work, maybe their employers insurance.

The point is that people on bikes are not considered hazardous enough to others to warrant compulsory insurance, and this is well documented by various sources. Cyclists are more or less considered as pedestrians by law, so if you want compulsory insurance for them, you will also need it for pedestrians, people pushing prams, etc.

Moreover, how will this be enforced? Will my 8 year old niece need compulsory insurance? What if she lends he bike to her mate?

Cheers,
Nick.

 

[PEG]

....I love this...i am firmly in the middle,as i yearn for immunity from prosecution,for knocking the idiot cyclists in to a firethorn hedge...yet...wanting full use of the highway,when out on my unicycle,as i was,this week

Two wheels are for minions...