Interesting stats on cycle red light jumpers

[snowy]

23 hours ago, first mate said:

@Earl Aelfheah Okay, so you agree there may be a reason to look more carefully at speed controls for cyclists? If you don't think the policy is necessarily negative as outlined in the article why then do you view the article as having a slightly negative tone? That does not make sense.

A "wake up call" simply means that instead of going into knee- jerk denial mode that an increase in cycling and cycling modes (e-bikes; cargo bikes) might require additional controls, we open our minds to what is going on in other countries with greater experience of cycling infrastructure, and take note.

But if you look at the details of what is being proposed and don't just fall for the clickbait headline, the proposals are to trial some limiting of other types of (non human powered) cycles, not standard cycles.

The ones they are looking to limit include cantas (micro cars),"speed pedelecs" (where you need a license, a helmet & number plate), mopeds (as they can use cycle lanes), illegal e-motorcycles and other mobility vehicles.

Its not about managing normal cycles and pedestrians. Its about making sure that vehicles with different mass and energy are safe when they use the same cycle space. 

They will also trial cycling fast lanes and wider Cargo bikes for business use will be moved to the main road, freeing space for other cyclists.

They are not looking for a blanket cycle speed limit.

 

[exdulwicher]

13 hours ago, jazzer said:

So what happens to the cyclist if they ride into and hit a pedestrian?

Is the cyclist liable?

As cyclists do not have insurance for riding bicycles, who does the pedestrian claim from?

What action would the Police take? If they even bother to attend such an incident?

Why would a cyclist take a blind corner at speed?

In order of your questions:

Chances are that the cyclist also falls off and is hurt. Therefore, contrary to popular belief, most cyclists do not ride around looking to run into anyone or anything.

Liability - it depends. Are you dancing erratically down a cycle lane, wearing headphones? Have you dashed into the road from between parked cars without looking and straight into the path of a cyclist? If so, you could easily argue that you are much more to blame. On the other hand, are you walking carefully along a pavement when a cyclist hurtles (cyclists always "hurtle"...) around a corner and straight into you? If so, you could easily argue that the cyclist is 100% in the wrong. There will be any number of "shades of grey" around that, much the same as drivers seem to get off significant amounts of responsibility by claiming that they had nowhere to go or the sun was in their eyes.

Insurance - this is a complete red herring. Anyone can make a (legitimate) claim for damages against anyone else. If someone in a supermarket car park smashes their trolley down the side of your car, if an uninsured driver is involved in an incident, if you bump into another pedestrian and you both fall over... You do the same as you would with any road traffic collision (witnesses, photos, look for CCTV and so on), you can go via any number of no-win-no-fee solicitors who specialise in personal accident and injury stuff, if the incident is severe enough to warrant medical care then that'll be reported via the appropriate channels. The police may or may not attend (and again, that would depend on the severity of the incident) but you can get a crime reference number (and let's face it, they won't attend the majority of burglaries or other "minor" crimes either). 
Chances are you'll find that the cyclist (and you as a pedestrian) has some form of insurance anyway - might be legal / liability cover bolted onto home insurance, something within a life insurance policy... Plus there is of course the Motor Insurance Bureau which is a fund paid into by insurers (and ultimately, us) to compensate victims of uninsured and hit-and-run drivers, it will also apply to a hit-and-run cycling incident. 
And a lot of cyclists will have cycle insurance for incidents as part of membership of any cycling organisation or included within theft cover on a bike. If they're on a Lime / Forest hire bike, they'll be on a blanket insurance policy via the hire company. But generally, the whole insurance thing is a complete distraction.

Police - see above. Depends on the severity of the incident and what (if any) crime has been committed.

I can't answer the last one because I can't speak for the cyclist in question. 

[Spartacus]

I was under the impression that the changes to highway code around hierarchy puts the pedestrian at the higest risk, therefore even if they are dancing in a cycle lane, it is deemed to be the cyclist fault in a collision as they are the faster moving object of the two and can brake or swerve around the pedestrian. 

Makes liability a bit more complex 

 

[exdulwicher]

4 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Makes liability a bit more complex 

Very much so. 

If you go and stand in a road and claim that - as a pedestrian - you have priority, you'll be arrested for causing an obstruction. 
Liability and "being in the right" also doesn't help much when you're dead. 

You can step onto a pedestrian crossing and get mown down by a truck or be cycling entirely legally and get taken out by a left-turning car going across you; the fact that you were technically in the right won't really make a lot of difference to your bereaved family. Sometimes, the world does actually rely on everyone looking out for themselves and each other. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

The highway code puts it like this:

Quote

The ‘hierarchy of road users’ is a concept that places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy. The hierarchy does not remove the need for everyone to behave responsibly. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I didn't say this though. You can keep doubling down, but it's a straight forward lie. The quote you have produced (having scoured the forum, desperately trying to wiggle out of simply admitting an error - heaven forbid that you should ever do that), was: "Dulwich Review Consultation Report (August 2021) 55 per cent supported the aims set out in its ‘Streets for People’ initiative". This is not a false assertion. It is a fact.

But it did not show majority support for the DV LTN did it? That's how you were trying to use it and you got caught and it is you who are trying to weedle your way out of it - unsuccessfully I hasten to add.

Do you acknowledge then that there was majority opposition to the DV LTN in the consultation report?

2 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

and all of this in a context where despite posting One Dulwich press releases and having concerns that are near indentically alligned to them, Rockets states he has no idea who is behind them or who funds them. Is this ignorance either an indicator of an incredibly one sided approach to local issues which doesn't lend itself to any genuine balanced debate, or perhaps a bad faith approach to engaging on these threads?

@DulvilleRes you clearly think I have something to do with One Dulwich. For the umpteenth time I don't. If you think I do, by all means, say so but this innuendo is becoming very boring. I suggest you have nothing more to go on than a hunch but your hunch is wrong. I believe One Dulwich is doing a great job stopping folks from sweeping a load of stuff under the carpet....five years on and all that! Bravo to them and if it annoys a few of the usual suspects that this is happening then even more bravo to OneDulwich!

55 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

I was under the impression that the changes to highway code around hierarchy puts the pedestrian at the higest risk,

It does and it is up to other road users to respect this and the whole point of this thread is in relation to the increasing number of cyclists who seem not to know or respect that fact.

[Rockets]

Oh another click bait headline?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/london-cycling-tsar-will-norman-idiots-motorists-red-light-jumping-b1238425.html

[Earl Aelfheah]

I mean yes. If you read the article, he's actually talking about bad road behaviour generally. He also says the “antagonism” between cyclists and motorists portrayed on social media was “not representative of real life”. I agree with him. Unfortunately as flagged by Penguin, and amply demonstrated by you Rocks, some people do see it as a football match between two 'sides' / a culture war and are lost down a social media rabbit hole. Hence the fact that you seem to be fed (and then unhelpfully post on this website), every single article or opinion piece with a headline that is negative in tone about people using bicycles.

Edited 7 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah