Government to get tough on dangerous cyclists

Captain-Cretin    on 17 August 2018

And I will bet that when you DO see one; they will ignore almost everything.

I was driving along the M62; about 1/2 mile behind a Police patrol one evening; a HGV with a duff headlight, no number plate on the trailor and doing 85+mph went past me, and then straight past the Police patrol.

They totally ignored it.

I would like to see the automatic "Its the drivers fault" removed from all vehicle-bike incidents; I am sick of swerving to miss cyclists coming out of one way streets the wrong way, blithly riding off curbs in front of me, across junctions on red lights, down the wrong side of the road - at night and with no lights.

I ride as well, but not as often as I used to, because there are also plenty of sociopathic young car drivers out there as well. I live in the middle of town, yet get cars/motorbikes coming by at 70+ most days, and at night it is even worse.

Peter Hobbs    on 20 August 2018

You have a very well balanced view of the situation, we spend a lot of time in the Y orkshire Dales at weekends and the no of cyclists riding in packs two or three abreast creating large tailbacks on twisty windy roads is quite common. Also the no of cyclists wearing black or dark clothing which on tree lined roads creating shadows makes them very hard to see. Surely they must take their personal safety more seriously? As you say the small amount of cyclists who are arrogant and ride irresponsibly taint the vast majority of cyclists who are responsible, the same goes for car drivers/

farmideas    on 20 August 2018

Yes. But UK vehicle lighting is a Free-for-All.

straggler    on 23 August 2018

No it isn't. There are many regulations considering vehicle lighting.

straggler    on 20 August 2018

I laughed out loud at the idea of all cyclists wearing a vest with their details on it. Stunningly stupid!

Perhaps you would like all pedestrians to do the same? It could come in handy should one step out in front of you and force you to swerve into a tree!

Gary Gamble    on 21 August 2018

I'm all for it. The downside for cars is that we cyclists will now have some say and much more clout with regard to road legislation. Bring it on!

straggler    on 20 August 2018

I have seen bikes, cars, trucks, buses and tractors doing similar things to the ones you describe. People do bad things in or on all sorts of vehicles. So what is your point?

david maud    on 20 August 2018

I have seen bikes, cars, trucks, buses and tractors doing similar things to the ones you describe. People do bad things in or on all sorts of vehicles. So what is your point?

The point is there is a reasonable chance that a motorised vehicle with a bell end driving it can be identified. Cyclists are invisible to the law unless they get hurt in the course of their actions and cant leave the scene.

straggler    on 23 August 2018

But people in vehicles with numberplates still do many bellendy things. That should be telling you something.....

Cyclists are invisible to the law in the same way everyone else is ie they're not!

straggler    on 20 August 2018

Should pedestrians have to have insurance too?

straggler    on 23 August 2018

Well, I would have replied earlier but those tears of laughter kept coming.

Anyway. Where to begin, where to begin.....

What is this "cycling community" of which you speak? Whenever I drive my car am I part of the "driving community" and do I therefore share responsibility for the actions of all other car drivers?

And you still haven't said why if cyclists are expected to wear a bib with ID details pedestrians would be exempt. Are you saying that no pedestrians cause accidents? It would seem bizarre to suggest this and equally bizarre to expect cyclists to display their details and not pedestrians.

As for suggesting something better then why are you assuming that I think some sort of bicycle ID is necessary? Because in my opinion it isn't! Although perhaps getting all cyclists to carry a magephone and to constantly call out their name and address might work. Silly suggestion? You started it. But if you can cite a country where a bib-wearing scheme is in place then I'd be more than happy to reconsider.

Your suggestion is hideously impractical, for a start. A bib. To be worn at all times when cycling. By everyone. Does that include children? How would you prosecute a child for a motoring offence? Does it apply to people cycling on public roads only? Or all the time? What about people who wear backpacks? Who checks the ID details are correct and up to date? What if someone's bib is dirty? Or a bit creased? And what if people refuse to wear them....?

And the cost. It would go on your tax bill. Would you be happy with that?

You cite cars being easy to ID yet why do we still have people who drink drive? People who drive dangerously and cause accidents? Even if there was a practical way of a bike carrying and displaying an ID marker that would not in itself make irresponsible cyclists more responsible.

And the biggest issue is that your suggestion is a great example of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut (and then missing the nut and whacking your own foot). Any incident involving injury is one incident too many but the police already have the power to stop and prosecute cyclists. Perhaps directing your missives to your local police, and/or voting for a political party who will increase funding for the police might be a better use of your time.

Apart from the pages of the Daily Mail, most people agree that cycling is a great way to keep fit, help the environment and reduce traffic. Why on earth would you want to bring in some rule that would discourage people from using such a beneficial form of transport?

david maud    on 24 August 2018

Well, I would have replied earlier but those tears of laughter kept coming.

Anyway. Where to begin, where to begin.....

What is this "cycling community" of which you speak? Whenever I drive my car am I part of the "driving community" and do I therefore share responsibility for the actions of all other car drivers?

And you still haven't said why if cyclists are expected to wear a bib with ID details pedestrians would be exempt. Are you saying that no pedestrians cause accidents? It would seem bizarre to suggest this and equally bizarre to expect cyclists to display their details and not pedestrians.

As for suggesting something better then why are you assuming that I think some sort of bicycle ID is necessary? Because in my opinion it isn't! Although perhaps getting all cyclists to carry a magephone and to constantly call out their name and address might work. Silly suggestion? You started it. But if you can cite a country where a bib-wearing scheme is in place then I'd be more than happy to reconsider.

Your suggestion is hideously impractical, for a start. A bib. To be worn at all times when cycling. By everyone. Does that include children? How would you prosecute a child for a motoring offence? Does it apply to people cycling on public roads only? Or all the time? What about people who wear backpacks? Who checks the ID details are correct and up to date? What if someone's bib is dirty? Or a bit creased? And what if people refuse to wear them....?

And the cost. It would go on your tax bill. Would you be happy with that?

You cite cars being easy to ID yet why do we still have people who drink drive? People who drive dangerously and cause accidents? Even if there was a practical way of a bike carrying and displaying an ID marker that would not in itself make irresponsible cyclists more responsible.

And the biggest issue is that your suggestion is a great example of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut (and then missing the nut and whacking your own foot). Any incident involving injury is one incident too many but the police already have the power to stop and prosecute cyclists. Perhaps directing your missives to your local police, and/or voting for a political party who will increase funding for the police might be a better use of your time.

Apart from the pages of the Daily Mail, most people agree that cycling is a great way to keep fit, help the environment and reduce traffic. Why on earth would you want to bring in some rule that would discourage people from using such a beneficial form of transport?

This debate is focused on proposed new enforcement laws aimed directly at cyclists. The laws governing motor vehicles, however flawed are already in place. The problem with cycling legislation is accountability which you clearly have a huge issue with. Why are you different to any other road user just because you are on a cycle? Why do you think that you have the right to anonymity? I made the opposite assumption about you, knowing that you resist identification. What i dont understand is why? When you are riding a cycle you are just another uninsured potential hazard. Why should you not be accountable for your actions? I clearly illustrated the difference between the reckless actions of pedestrians and the premeditated ones of cyclists in my second submission. I couldnt agree with you more that legitamacy doesnt remove terrible decision making and egregious driving standards, and it wont stop a minority of cyclists doing the same. But motor vehicles ARE identifiable even if the driver is not the registered owner, providing its not wearing stolen plates. There is still a trail to follow. And if its your vehicle, registered and insured then you are accountable for any RTA offence and accidents. I adcocate a single id number relevant to that rider to be displayed on the back of a vest to correlate to all the rider details held on a data base. Just the same as the DVLA. Not to have the riders name, address and insurance details on it. Just a number. Maybe a barcode for plod to scan. The same as number plate recognition. If it gets dirty, then clean it. If it gets creased straighten it. Its an offence to have an unreadable number plate on a car or motor bike or lorry or any other motor vehicle. That includes it being dirty or damaged. Or creased. I said that anyone over the age of sixteen should be included because this is the age at which you are allowed to learn to ride a moped on the road, officialy out of childhood. As for people refusing to wear id vests, if its law then as i said before they will be breaking it and liable to prosecution for that offence. As for it being hideously impractical that just sounds like it interfers with lycra fashion. And yes the police do have the power to road side stop cyclists. They also have the power to act retrospectively and trace reported drivers. They cant do do that with cyclists currently. The law doesnt need to be draconian. But change is coming and principally because of the increasing of both leisure cyclists and commuters. And the crimes of the few affecting the masses. Exactly as it applies to motorists. As for the cost, you pay your own. Third party insurance cover for a cycle ought to be measured against risk of damage and cost of repair. I would say it shouldnt be astronomical, but that being said, i wouldnt trust the insurance companies not to rip cyclists off any more than they do drivers. What i woould point out is the unarguable fact that if as a cyclist you incur losses in a collision with an insured vehicle you are at liberty to make a claim against the insured. How can it be reasonable for that not to apply the other way around?

I am not against cycling and cyclists. I am for accountability for all road users. Including the most dangerous and unpredictable of all. Horse riders.

You and i are never going to agree, but at some point you will be forced to choose between being a law abiding accountable cyclist or a non compliant law breaker. Or a conscientious objector.

I dont think the Daily Mail argues that cycling is not a great way to keep fit or help the environment or reduce traffic. And the aim isnt to introduce "some" rule drive cyclists away, but to achieve laws governed by accountability and provide protection and equal safeguarding for all road users.

straggler    on 8 September 2018

You obviously think about this a lot! The problems with your reasoning are many but let's start with the most obvious one - what you are proposing is just not necessary! All road traffic collisions are regrettable but just have a look at the stats concernng deaths caused by cyclists and compare that with deaths caused by motor vehicles. That really should tell you something about where the problem lies.

I asked if you could cite an example of a country having some sort of bicycle registration similar to your hiviz vest idea. As you didn't repsond to that I can presume that you looked for one but got no result. Don't you find that strange? A solution (albeit a solution to a problem only you seem to see) that is "stunningly simple" not being taken up by the Netherlands, fo instance, where cycling is far more common than here?

You claim that cyclists are unnaccountable for their actions. Where on earth do you get that idea from? Cyclists are liable for prosecution if they commit an offence just as anyone would be for any other offence.

You claim that the reckless actions of pedestrians are somehow different to the reckless actions of cyclists. They're not. So why should pedestrains not have to wear some sort of ID too? If they cause accidents then they should be identifiable, to use your line of thinking. Or maybe you think people being forced to wear a hiviz with some sort of code on it is a tad draconian..!

I will have to "choose between being a law abiding, accountable cyclist or a non-compliant law-breaker". That is a bizarre statement to make! You think your idea for hiviz ID vests is going to become law just like that?!

Oh, and you claim that horse riders are the most danergous and unpredictable road users. Where is your evdience for this? If it is the same "evidence" you use for your "solution" to bad cycling then I think you really should have a think about your analytical/cost vs benefit thinking!

david maud    on 11 September 2018

You obviously think about this a lot! The problems with your reasoning are many but let's start with the most obvious one - what you are proposing is just not necessary! All road traffic collisions are regrettable but just have a look at the stats concernng deaths caused by cyclists and compare that with deaths caused by motor vehicles. That really should tell you something about where the problem lies.

I asked if you could cite an example of a country having some sort of bicycle registration similar to your hiviz vest idea. As you didn't repsond to that I can presume that you looked for one but got no result. Don't you find that strange? A solution (albeit a solution to a problem only you seem to see) that is "stunningly simple" not being taken up by the Netherlands, fo instance, where cycling is far more common than here?

You claim that cyclists are unnaccountable for their actions. Where on earth do you get that idea from? Cyclists are liable for prosecution if they commit an offence just as anyone would be for any other offence.

You claim that the reckless actions of pedestrians are somehow different to the reckless actions of cyclists. They're not. So why should pedestrains not have to wear some sort of ID too? If they cause accidents then they should be identifiable, to use your line of thinking. Or maybe you think people being forced to wear a hiviz with some sort of code on it is a tad draconian..!

I will have to "choose between being a law abiding, accountable cyclist or a non-compliant law-breaker". That is a bizarre statement to make! You think your idea for hiviz ID vests is going to become law just like that?!

Oh, and you claim that horse riders are the most danergous and unpredictable road users. Where is your evdience for this? If it is the same "evidence" you use for your "solution" to bad cycling then I think you really should have a think about your analytical/cost vs benefit thinking!

Just because you dont like or want a registration and insurance scheme doesnt mean it is unneccassary. Clearly something along these lines is to be considered, and there is support among the other comments on this forum for it. Road offences and safety are not judged solely on mortality rates.

I didnt respond to your challenge regarding other countries not having a similar scheme because the debate is about Great Britain and not anywhere else. We are talking about enforcement here, in our own country.

You keep on missing the point in terms of accountability. Of course cyclists are accountable, but only if they are identifiable. If the coppers dont catch them committing the offence they cant investigate a report from a pedestrian or motorist because there is currently no means of identifying the rider.

You keep on failing to make the distinction between reckless and pre meditated actions.

A pedestrian not paying attention and dashing across a road without looking is reckless

A cyclist riding on the pavement or shooting a red light is a choice. Pre meditated.

And no, i dont think my idea is going to become law just like that. But I do know that any law is only enforceable hand in hand with identification and accountability.

It is not bizarre to recognize that if a law is introduced and you dont comply, that you are breaking it. And not liking or agreeing with it is not a defence that is going to be succesful in court.

Like it or not, there is a will to clamp down on the behaviour of SOME cyclists, evidenced by the invitation to participate in the cycling and walking investment stategy safety review.

That review doesnt cover all road traffic offences but will still require an id scheme for it to be enforced, which still solves the problem of identification in other offences.

As for horses, i live in a rural area. I treat riders with the greatest respect. But two personal examples...an old friend, a young woman at the time and a keen equestrian was a passenger in a car which was stationary, when the horse for which they had stopped then panicked, bucked and put both its rear hoofs through the windscreen and into my friends head. She survived, but later had a linked breakdown.

The other happened when i slowed behind a rider, she pulled the horse up in the road and couldnt continue, because, as she helpfully explained, the horse was afraid of gates.

And finally, if you can afford a horse or a bike, you can afford your own costs, just the same as a motorist is expected to.

straggler    on 18 September 2018

You truly are the gift that keeps on giving!

So, you are not interested in what other countries do in regards to cyclists. The translation of this is - you looked and looked for something, anything, to back up your ideas yet failed. Again! And this really, really should be pointing you toward the conclusion that the moves you are suggesting are not necessary. The Netherlands doesn't seem to find that sort of legislation necessary. Neither does Germany, Austria or Switzerland. Switzerland! That country where everything is forbidden unless it is specifically permitted somehow avoids the spiral into anarchy that having unregistered cyclists leads to.

Accountability - everyone is accountable for their actions. You seem to think that anyone without a registration number permanently on display has carte blanche to run amok. Funnily enough, they haven't. If that was the case then the police would never catch any criminals.

You seem to think that an action can't be both pre-meditated and reckless. A cyclist jumping a red light can be both. So can a pedestrian running across a road. So your argument fails. Again.

As for the need to "clamp down", as you so dramatically put it, the only call for registration etc is from you. That should tell you something.

As for your horse stories then that really says a lot about you - you don't research statistics but think one personal and one "my mate told me" stories are somehow definitive proof of your view that horses are the most dangerous things on the road.

Anyway, the people who decide on legislation on roads, vehicle safety, policing etc are largely a sensible bunch who don't rely on Daily Mail-esque theories on how to make everything better. Perhaps you should contact the relevant people in these fields and let them know your ideas? After all, they do a serious job so could probably do with a laugh.

Edited by straggler on 18/09/2018 at 09:39

david maud    on 18 September 2018

You truly are the gift that keeps on giving!

So, you are not interested in what other countries do in regards to cyclists. The translation of this is - you looked and looked for something, anything, to back up your ideas yet failed. Again! And this really, really should be pointing you toward the conclusion that the moves you are suggesting are not necessary. The Netherlands doesn't seem to find that sort of legislation necessary. Neither does Germany, Austria or Switzerland. Switzerland! That country where everything is forbidden unless it is specifically permitted somehow avoids the spiral into anarchy that having unregistered cyclists leads to.

Accountability - everyone is accountable for their actions. You seem to think that anyone without a registration number permanently on display has carte blanche to run amok. Funnily enough, they haven't. If that was the case then the police would never catch any criminals.

You seem to think that an action can't be both pre-meditated and reckless. A cyclist jumping a red light can be both. So can a pedestrian running across a road. So your argument fails. Again.

As for the need to "clamp down", as you so dramatically put it, the only call for registration etc is from you. That should tell you something.

As for your horse stories then that really says a lot about you - you don't research statistics but think one personal and one "my mate told me" stories are somehow definitive proof of your view that horses are the most dangerous things on the road.

Anyway, the people who decide on legislation on roads, vehicle safety, policing etc are largely a sensible bunch who don't rely on Daily Mail-esque theories on how to make everything better. Perhaps you should contact the relevant people in these fields and let them know your ideas? After all, they do a serious job so could probably do with a laugh.

I am disappointed that you are are resorting to mild personal insults to begin your protest and making assumptions and statements as to my research. I am aware that other countries do little or nothing..Switzerland introduced and then abolished such a scheme.

But i still am not going to use another country as an example for what happens in Great Britain.

Of course we are all accountable. That doesn't equate to punishment for crimes committed unless you are identified. Motorists and bikers are identifiable. Cyclists are not. And should be. I do not care what system is used to bring law breaking cyclists before the courts, whether its my idea or putting a number plate on your cycle.

As for the police catching criminals, they rely entirely on identification from witnesses and mostly CCTV. That is successful only when they receive information confirming the identity of the perpetrator.

And an unlawful action doesn't become a crime only upon detection and prosecution.

The bodies who will enforce new laws concerning cycle and pedestrian safety will have to consider how identification is to be achieved. Otherwise it will be a futile exercise.

And when a motorist or cyclist jumps a red light after a seconds thought, that is a premeditated decision which then becomes reckless after the fact. Drivers have a duty of care to not injure foolish pedestrians presenting gross carelessness or recklessness. The consumption of alcohol by a pedestrian to the level of affected judgement is considered reckless.

I certainly not alone in calling for laws to regulate and punish cycling offences. Every motorist i know feels the same as i do. There are people on this forum who feel the same.

And prominent practitioners in the media, and not just the Daily Mail. Although i will have to take your word that there is a vendetta against cyclists being sponsored the Mail.

I provided two factual examples of horse behavior, two of many because of my location, and both personal. The firs had a profound and life changing effect on my friend and it is to your shame that you dismiss it as a "my mate told me story" Disgusting.

She doesn't mind that this event is related, because as a keen horse rider, she campaigns for better road craft from riders herself.

straggler    on 18 September 2018

I am not resorting to personal insults. I am ridiculing your arguments. It's a completely different thing and something you make very easy.

So I was right - you did some googling and could find no country in the world that thought it necessary to introduce a scheme where cyclists would have to where bibs. The nearest you can cite is Switzerland, which has now abandoned its scheme (which never required cyclists to wear bibs) yet you fail to take any clues from that and resort to claiming that what every other country in the world does is of no consequence. But you'd think at least one country in the world would have thought of this "stunningly simple" idea before, wouldn't you....?

Your arguments about being identifiable are becoming increasingly bizarre. You say that cyclists are not identifiable. In that case, nobody is! So, once again, why should pedestrians be treated any differently?

Your paragraph concerning drivers and cyclists jumping red lights makes no sense. You state that drivers have a duty of care to not injure pedestrians yet surely if a pedestrian ran out in front of a car and caused an accident that pedestrian is not identifiable (in your view, of course!) and should be. So, in your view, pedestrians should also be forced to wear bibs. Singling out cyclists makes no sense.

Calling for laws to regulate cycling offences is something that many people do without bothering to think that these offences are already punishable. As you have done. There may be an argument for formalising more up to date statutes regarding causing death by reckless cycling but things such as cycling on the pavement are already illegal. Making them more illegal would be a waste of time.

Where did I say the Daily Mail had a vendetta against cyclists? I said your arguments were Daily Mail-type theories. Which they are. And you don't have to read the Daily Mail to be a Daily Mail reader. Look it up! You may be able to see the irony in your misreading of my statement about the Daily Mail-esqueness of your thinking then. Which is probably doubly ironic! I'll find an irony meter and get back to you.

Many of these people are indeed calling for more laws (something must be done!) but the people calling for cyclists to wear bibs with ID information? That'll be you!

As for your disgust at your "two factual examples" of horse behaviour please get off your high horse (you're not from Tunbridge Wells, are you?). The one example is told in a way you claim proves your point, the second is secondhand. Very, very few road traffic collisions are 100% the fault of one party. Responsibility is shared. Sometimes very much by one party but shared, nonetheless.

You are certainly entitled to your cliched opinions (a thing happened to me therefore those things are all bad) of cyclists, horse riders and whichever other road users you feel you need to criticise but being objective is A Good Thing when it comes to road safety. You should try it!

david maud    on 18 September 2018

I am not resorting to personal insults. I am ridiculing your arguments. It's a completely different thing and something you make very easy.

So I was right - you did some googling and could find no country in the world that thought it necessary to introduce a scheme where cyclists would have to where bibs. The nearest you can cite is Switzerland, which has now abandoned its scheme (which never required cyclists to wear bibs) yet you fail to take any clues from that and resort to claiming that what every other country in the world does is of no consequence. But you'd think at least one country in the world would have thought of this "stunningly simple" idea before, wouldn't you....?

Your arguments about being identifiable are becoming increasingly bizarre. You say that cyclists are not identifiable. In that case, nobody is! So, once again, why should pedestrians be treated any differently?

Your paragraph concerning drivers and cyclists jumping red lights makes no sense. You state that drivers have a duty of care to not injure pedestrians yet surely if a pedestrian ran out in front of a car and caused an accident that pedestrian is not identifiable (in your view, of course!) and should be. So, in your view, pedestrians should also be forced to wear bibs. Singling out cyclists makes no sense.

Calling for laws to regulate cycling offences is something that many people do without bothering to think that these offences are already punishable. As you have done. There may be an argument for formalising more up to date statutes regarding causing death by reckless cycling but things such as cycling on the pavement are already illegal. Making them more illegal would be a waste of time.

Where did I say the Daily Mail had a vendetta against cyclists? I said your arguments were Daily Mail-type theories. Which they are. And you don't have to read the Daily Mail to be a Daily Mail reader. Look it up! You may be able to see the irony in your misreading of my statement about the Daily Mail-esqueness of your thinking then. Which is probably doubly ironic! I'll find an irony meter and get back to you.

Many of these people are indeed calling for more laws (something must be done!) but the people calling for cyclists to wear bibs with ID information? That'll be you!

As for your disgust at your "two factual examples" of horse behaviour please get off your high horse (you're not from Tunbridge Wells, are you?). The one example is told in a way you claim proves your point, the second is secondhand. Very, very few road traffic collisions are 100% the fault of one party. Responsibility is shared. Sometimes very much by one party but shared, nonetheless.

You are certainly entitled to your cliched opinions (a thing happened to me therefore those things are all bad) of cyclists, horse riders and whichever other road users you feel you need to criticise but being objective is A Good Thing when it comes to road safety. You should try it!

This issue and my suggestion has done the trick. Its got your dander up in a way i could only happily imagine, beyond my expectations. You just cant abide the prospect of your self righteous, pious and sanctimonious misplaced sense of your imaginary safe zone being challenged in any way .A p;ace in which you can do anything and commit any offence that you wish with impunity. I do not have to google..i already know. And again, what any other country does or does not do, has no bearing on Britain. You can argue until you are blue in the face, which i suspect may already be the case, but you are annoyed with me because you know that public opinion is against you in the majority, and you simply detest the idea of ANY enforcement whatsoever targeted at cyclists. It is past understanding that cyclists using public areas are not prosecuted adequately.

Offences are already punishable. But not if you as a cyclist can vanish without a trace.

Go through a light at red on a junction with enforcement cameras in a motor vehicle and you get a letter. On a cycle, nothing. Not even if you caused a car or a van to swerve when they were abiding by the signals, resulting in a collision, because you have disappeared. And no, it has never happened to me.

On the subject of horses, the example of a horse and rider abruptly pulling up in the middle of a country lane because it is afraid of gates is a perfect illustration of the unpredictable nature of a horse. And the other is recounting an injury to a friend. I dont care whether you believe me. But your dismissal of my friends injury IS disgusting.

We are both entitled to our opinion. We dont have to agree.

This exchange has gone way beyond the original subject.

New laws will be implemented, and prosecutions will follow, and the movement towards treating cyclists in a similar way to motorists may be slow, but it will continue, to your chagrin. This conversation is at an end.

Reply if you wish, but it will not be viewed by me, because tour bitterness is embellished with sarcasm, which is the refuge of the slow witted.

straggler    on 20 September 2018

Easy there, tiger! Getting angry about some mild (and well deserved) ribbing about poorly thought out and truly bizarre suggestions is saying a lot about you ie you find it insulting that your theories should be questioned and are resorting to flinging mud rather than actually tackling the issue in question.

And that issue is the accountability of cyclists, which you think requires cyclists to wear hiviz bibs. No country in the world has this rule. So you dismiss the entire rest of the world as irrelevant. No-one in the UK is campaigning for cyclists to wear hiviz vests with ID. Yet you still think it's a good idea. You really, really need to take a look at your thought processes, skills of analysis etc! Forming an opinion and then dismissing anything that doesn't support your view is beneath you, surely? But maybe not!

You still claim that cyclists are somehow immune from prosecution yet admit that the police do actually catch people who commit crimes and are not wearing anything which lists their address details. Again, truly bizarre how you can't see the contradiction in your arguments!

Your examples with horses again show you up. Every accident/incident on the roads is the responsibility of all parties involved. If you learned nothing about your own actions and your own responsibilities from this incident with the horse then you are destined to repeat the same mistakes.

And when did I dismiss your friend's injury? I was merely pointing out the above - responsibility is shared. That's why the police take statements from all parties, investigate accidents independently etc. Or don't you believe people should be accountable for their own actions? Would seem a strange position to take considering your previous ideas!

As for your parting shot, that about says it all - I question your ideas and you respond with indignation and anger. How dare I do that! And you finish off with the last resort of the online expert - "I will not read your reply, this conversation is over" etc. But you just have read this, of course!

Anyway, road safety experts are generally a level-headed bunch who research things properly and learn from the past. Obviously they make mistakes like everyone else but they generally don't recommend actions without looking into things thoroughly. Hiviz ID vests for cyclists? I'm sure that will make even such a serious bunch break into a smile!

david maud    on 20 August 2018

As a pedestrian most of the time I'm alarmed at the number of adult cyclists who insist on riding on pavements and through pedestrianised areas even where there are cycle tracks provided. To be told, as I was last year by a young adult, that he had every right to cycle on the pathway and that I had to avoid him beggars belief! It seems difficult to believe that cyclists are not required to have a test, insurance, safety gear and their bikes checked independently on a regular basis and yet are allowed to ride wherever they wish. Whatever happened to bells on bikes? At least we would know of their whereabouts but warnings are really given by the riders. Like most of our drivers who park wholly or partly on pavements, perhaps all pedestrian areas should be abolished. But then where would these people know where to park or ride? Seriously, there must surely be existing Laws concerning this issue but like all things legal these days, there is no enforcement. Police are in crime reaction mode not crime prevention. My only defence of these cyclists is that I wouldn't care to cycle on the roads these days - far too dangerous. But that doesn't mean my life should be at risk because they cycle where I walk. I guess any new initiatives to stop dangerous cyclists and cycling should be welcomed, but without enforcement - pointless.

it is illegal to ride a cycle on a pavement or pathway. Just never enforced.