The Police and Crime Commissioner’s website has a piece here on “Operation Bluenose” – a three-day crackdown on anti-social cyclists in Southend:
Residents said they had cause to make regular complaints about cyclists flouting the law by riding on pavements in Westcliff, Southend High Street and the seafront. They asked for police action to address the issue and feared a pedestrian could have faced serious injury if the problem persisted….
…..As a result of the action 107 cyclists were hit with a Traffic Offence Report, which results in a later fine or prosecution. A further 35 riders completed a retraining course rather than facing prosecution. One cyclist, who had no headlamps, was also arrested after it was discovered the individual was wanted for theft.
Wish they would do the same round here. Fed up with fully grown adults who could easily ride in the road cycling along the only bit of pavement we have, often at quite high speed with no consideration at all for pedestrians
I would like to see this scheme extended here to stop the Lycra clad half wits who think it’s acceptable to ride 2,3 or 4 abreast oblivious to the traffic building up behind them.
So let’s make it a legal requirement for these ejits to:
1. Take a test to prove they are competent to ride a bike,
2. Pay the equilivent of VED.
3, Have 3rd party insurance as a legal requirement.
4, Have an “MoT” on any bike over 3 years.
Once you get that then you too can have a moan….
Two ir three abreast is so that cars do not push cyclists into the hedge when overtaking.
Oz, back when I was a child, which admittedly us a long time ago, schools ran something called cycling proficiency and you weren’t allowed to,ride your bike to,school until you passed it. Covered Highway Code, safety, general road sense, which carried through to adulthood. I presume this is no longer taught.
As for insurance, every cyclist should have to give third party cover as a minimum, and yes, why not some form of road tax. It costs a lot of money to construct these special lanes more and more of them demand. From what I see many vehicle/cycle accidents are down to the cyclist just not following basic rules of the road. With traffic everywhere the way it is now some form of test would actually benefit everyone
The Mighty Oz, I agree with all your points, but would also like to add some sort of registration number similar to the index numbers for motor vehicles. This would help to identify the small handful of inconsiderate cyclists.
The Mighty Oz, I Took a test at about 8 years old called the Cycle Proficiency Test, pay VED? my cycle doesn’t emit CO2 so would be zero rated, 3rd party Insurance, how many pedestrians are killed or injured by bikes compared to car drivers? and MOT’s for bikes, why? any evidence that bikes have faults?
Bikes are allowed to ride two abreast & I hope you observe Highway code rule 163 and give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/static/hc/hc_rule_163_give_vulnerable_road_users_at_least_as_much_space_as_you_would_a_car.jpg
Well said!! 🙂
The bikes may not emit CO2 but the riders certainly do, lots of it. A typical response blaming others to excuse their poor behaviour. Not me, it’s the road users. If I were you I would avoid quoting the Highway Code as you can’t pick and choose the bits you want to obey. Go away and read it again.
I ride a bike. I ride a bike alone. I also tow a trailer. I also ride with others. Car drivers will only ever know the danger we are in if they rode a bike. You can only possibly comment on all this if you know the perils of riding a bike, driving a car and being a pedestrian. If you haven’t, please do go and try it and then come back and comment. Cycling is healthy and we have been doing it for years. To reiterate – if you see ten cyclist out on a sunday charging along two or three abrest, that is their way of asking you to overtake when clear. If they cycle in a long snake of ten, it will be a long acceleration and more danger to all. Thank you. Emma.
Thanks for your input and comments Emma…
Good to see the revival of a cyclist topic . It is particularly relevant with the RDC trying to ban cyclists from Hockley Woods ,see recent Evening Echo . There appears to be a lot of anti cycling rubbish quoted . There is a good reason that some riders take to the pavements with aggressive driving being the norm in south Essex . I personally have taken evasive action on occasions to avoid being knocked off my bike . Sometimes cyclists are maybe their own worst enemies with inconsiderate behaviour on the roads as well as in the Woods and bridle ways . There is no excuse though for deliberately endangering cyclists in Hockley Woods as well as daily on the roads .It is ironic that both ECC RDC and Sustrans have promoted Beeches Road /Watery Lane as a “safe cycling route”.All I would say is try getting on your bike and ride that route ! It is safer in Rawreth Lane!There was talk that the footpath along the A 1245 into Rawreth Lane would become dual use officially ,part of the A130 local community improvements .That has been forgotten as the engineers at County were disposed off ,along with the promised Quiet surfacing of the A130 .
Road tax was abolished in 1937. Churchill started the process in 1926 and one of the reasons he stopped it is because he foresaw this petty entitlement argument. Churchill stated stated “it will be only a step from this for (motorists) to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created” seems that he had a good understanding of how human nature would be today nearly 100 years ago.
Roads are paid out of general taxation so by using the VED or road tax argument if I earn more than another person thereby contributing more in taxes then surely I am more entitled to cycle on the roads than they are to drive on them. Or if I pay local council tax and a car driver is from out of the area then I have greater entitlement to cycle on the roads in my area than they have to drive.
Some bikes cost more than a used family car. A Zipp wheelset will cost more than some cars and believe it or not some people have their bikes serviced on a regular basis taking them to a shop to be serviced and checked by a qualified mechanic (cy-tech)
If a cyclist is a member of CTC or British cycling they will have third party Insurance
Also would it be easier to overtake 12 cyclists riding two abreast or 12 cyclists strung out in one line (think long and hard about this one)
I cycle, I obey red lights and the rules of the road, I will stop at Zebra crossings and I will have lights on when it is dark. Not all cyclists do this granted but they should and not all car drivers do this either but they should. Please tell me though who would cause the most damage to a someone or a something if they jumped a red light (I am not saying jumping a red light is the correct thing to do). A fat bloke in a two ton car or a fat bloke on a push bike. That is why motorists are invited to use the roads by License.
Generally I have found most road users to be OK, however there are always those who will pass to close or try and intimidate when there is absolutely no reason to do so (moreso in towns).
Please remeber that we may be annoying cyclists but we may also be someones Husband/Wife, Dad/Mum Brother/Sister or son/daughter and those people may want us to arrive home safely too.
We need to get over these pathetic them vs us aruments and just have a little bit of patience and understanding.
Personally I would prefer the police to go to the bother of real policing, like actually sending an officers out to investigate thefts, instead of using the not enough officers excuse. Presumably because they are all allocated to policing PR stunts like cycle duty.