Law for cyclists to comply with the same rules as drivers?

[Amyb]

Right, saw this earlier: http://bit.ly/1MERmlB

'Goading' cyclists??? should these guys be as accountable for their actions as motorists? Has anyone ever been goaded by a cyclist?!

[karlt]

He's an idiot.

Motorists require insurance, MOTs, driving tests, and VED because since cars were invented, it has become clear that they cause the following issues - massive damage to property and injury in accidents, death and serious injury through unroadworthiness, death and injury through incompetent driving and damage to the environment and highway which costs money to rectify. Because they do these things, and therefore require these measures, they need a means of identification so that there can be any degree of enforcement of the aforementioned provisions.

Cyclists do not cause any of the listed issues to any significant degree; it has not, therefore, proven necessary to take any of these measures to control them.

Until such time as cyclists can cause the carnage that unregulated motorists can, never mind the regulated ones, there is no need for any such provisions.

Did I mention that he's an idiot?

[AlanJ]

Right, saw this earlier: http://bit.ly/1MERmlB

'Goading' cyclists??? should these guys be as accountable for their actions as motorists? Has anyone ever been goaded by a cyclist?! [emoji38]

There was that "Pratt fall" video where the cyclist chased down a driver. To me that cyclist showed road rage and was spoiling for a confrontation. So yes I'd say I've seen goading cyclists.

Cyclists, motorists, pedestrians are all humans, some humans are idiots

[brooksby]

It's dumb, really. All of his arguments are set up, and he explains how compulsory registration plates and insurance would stop all of this happening. And, yet, (1) motorists still do it all and they *do* have compulsory registration plates and insurance, and (2) he makes his living by helping said motorists avoid responsibility for their actions by using Loopholes (tm) in the law.

(Off topic I know, and I'm sure (-ish) he's a decent (-ish) bloke in real life, but doesn't that photo *really* make you just want to punch him in the face?)

[[XAP]Bob]

We do obey the same rules - it's just that most of them don't apply...

[yakdiver]

Cycling Weekly claimed that any such laws that were introduced would lead to fewer people riding bikes.

I honestly don't believe this, if you are a genuine cyclist you will move hell and high water to ride your bike.

[[XAP]Bob]

Cycling Weekly claimed that any such laws that were introduced would lead to fewer people riding bikes.

I honestly don't believe this, if you are a genuine cyclist you will move hell and high water to ride your bike.

I would probably ignore them for a fair while

[Richard Fairhurst]

I think making your first post to a cycling forum with the title "Law for cyclists to comply with the same rules as drivers?" probably does count as "goading cyclists", yes...

[Tangled Metal]

Cycling Weekly claimed that any such laws that were introduced would lead to fewer people riding bikes.

I honestly don't believe this, if you are a genuine cyclist you will move hell and high water to ride your bike.

I would probably ignore them for a fair while

Well you'll have real bad luck if a copper did stop you. They hardly enforce road offences as it is so creating as unnecessary extra group to police isn't going to do anything but mark cyclists out even more. Plus it's not needed except to make it easier for Mr Loophole to help his clients. Cynical bloke all round. Worst example of his profession, IMHO better to highlight loopholes for closing. Of course.he's paid to act in clients interests so he's doing his job calling.for identification for cyclists.

I wonder why the police, home office or cps don't hire him to advise on closing all loopholes. Get him on retainer and he can't represent the other side.

[MartinC]

Surely if he wants lots of new laws for cyclist then we'll just end up with a Mr Loophole making lots of money getting them acquitted.................. Ah! Now I understand!

[Bicycler]

Cycling Weekly claimed that any such laws that were introduced would lead to fewer people riding bikes.

I honestly don't believe this, if you are a genuine cyclist you will move hell and high water to ride your bike.

"Genuine cyclist" makes about as much sense as "genuine pedestrian". You either ride a bike or you don't.

If you are a cycling enthusiast you might well make the effort to jump through whichever hoops are required. If you are not a cycling enthusiast they will present a significant disincentive to travel by bicycle.

[Pete Owens]

He's an idiot.

Indeed so - but he makes a great deal of money promotng himself as such to other idiots.
This is purely a stunt designed to stir up controversy and generate publicity for himself.
Don't react to it.

[drossall]

One of the killer arguments for me has been that liability insurance for cyclists is so cheap that cycling organisations can afford to give it away with membership. As soon as the RAC and AA make me the same offer, I'll know that I am as much a risk to others on my bike as I am in my car.

[MikeF]

In a statement, Mr Freeman said: “Cyclists are incredibly vulnerable and wearing helmets and sporting hi-vis clothing – which will cut down on deaths and injury – should be made mandatory.

Surely his argument should apply to pedestrians as well??

[[XAP]Bob]

In a statement, Mr Freeman said: “Cyclists are incredibly vulnerable and wearing helmets and sporting hi-vis clothing – which will cut down on deaths and injury – should be made mandatory.

Surely his argument should apply to pedestrians as well??

More importantly it should apply to all motorists...