On 08/01/2025 21:55, Andrew wrote:
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on typeDo you mean an electric bicycle OR an electric motorbike? The rules
that are available in trials around the country but the ones that look
like a moped and are beloved of various food delivery companies, some
of them being branded in the company’s colours.
We were told by a rider that jumped a red light and rode straight into
the side of a car that they do not need a helmet, do not need a
licence and do not need insurance. They have a plate on the back, but
it is not a vehicle registration plate and judging by the number that
overtake me when I am cycling, they can go at quite a bit more than
25km/h.
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?
for both are entirely different.They look different too...
On 09/01/2025 08:59, TTman wrote:
On 08/01/2025 21:55, Andrew wrote:
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand onDo you mean an electric bicycle OR an electric motorbike? The
type that are available in trials around the country but the ones
that look like a moped and are beloved of various food delivery
companies, some of them being branded in the company’s colours.
We were told by a rider that jumped a red light and rode straight
into the side of a car that they do not need a helmet, do not need
a licence and do not need insurance. They have a plate on the
back, but it is not a vehicle registration plate and judging by
the number that overtake me when I am cycling, they can go at
quite a bit more than 25km/h.
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would
any legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do
with them?
rules for both are entirely different.They look different too...
They are typically tweaked electric bicycles with the requirement to
pedal and 12mph speed limiter disabled. They are not road legal in
any way shape or form. But police CBA to police it. Flat out they
seem to do around 25mph but it can't be good for the rechargeable
battery.
However, the delivery companies will argue that these people are not
their employees and are self employed so they disown any and all responsibility for their delivery "drivers" crimes and misdemeanors.
Probably the worst example of its kind is this one where some
unfortunate plumber had his finger bitten off! Wrecking his
livelihood.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68558464
I expect there are plenty of RTCs involving these things but they
scarper through the traffic rather than exchange details with the
driver or pedestrian they hit (unless they are injured and even then
they try to run away). I'd hazard a guess that most are uninsured. eg.
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/hit-run-crash-sees-man-9797421
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?
Probably the worst example of its kind is this one where some
unfortunate plumber had his finger bitten off! Wrecking his
livelihood.
police CBA to police it
Le 09/01/2025 10:01, Martin Brown a crit:
police CBA to police it
What does CBA mean?
Le 09/01/2025 à 10:01, Martin Brown a écrit :
police CBA to police it
What does CBA mean?
On 08/01/2025 21:55, Andrew wrote:
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?
They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some
basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should
be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
On 08/01/2025 21:55, Andrew wrote:
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?
They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some
basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than
speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should
be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>
The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in Dalston, might be of interest:
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>
On 09/01/2025 08:59, TTman wrote:It probably is legal when sold.
Do you mean an electric bicycle OR an electric motorbike? The rulesI mean the ones that look like a moped. Something like this:
for both are entirely different.They look different too...
<https://www.eskuta.com/products/sx-250-series-4-electric-bike>
which they claim is legal in the UK.
Do you mean an electric bicycle OR an electric motorbike? The rules
for both are entirely different.They look different too...
On 09/01/2025 08:59, TTman wrote:
Do you mean an electric bicycle OR an electric motorbike? The rulesI mean the ones that look like a moped. Something like this:
for both are entirely different.They look different too...
<https://www.eskuta.com/products/sx-250-series-4-electric-bike>
which they claim is legal in the UK.
At least one delivery company seems to have them painted in corporate
colours which suggests that they have at least something to do with
their purchase.
On 09/01/2025 08:59, TTman wrote:
Do you mean an electric bicycle OR an electric motorbike? The rulesI mean the ones that look like a moped. Something like this:
for both are entirely different.They look different too...
<https://www.eskuta.com/products/sx-250-series-4-electric-bike>
which they claim is legal in the UK.
At least one delivery company seems to have them painted in corporate
colours which suggests that they have at least something to do with
their purchase.
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.
On 09/01/2025 20:07, Alan Lee wrote:
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.
I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.
On 9 Jan 2025 at 13:31:58 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
On 08/01/2025 21:55, Andrew wrote:
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any >>>> legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?
They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some
basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than
speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should >>> be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>
The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in >> Dalston, might be of interest:
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>
It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle, but of course these are separate issues.
The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to drivers (or riders) who kill people.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Jan 2025 at 13:31:58 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in >>> Dalston, might be of interest:
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>
It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle, >> but of course these are separate issues.
The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to
drivers (or riders) who kill people.
I think you’re aiming at the wrong target.
The rider was charged with a motor-vehicle offence, but the judge ruled
that his illegal electric bicycle wasn’t a motor vehicle, so he walked free.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Jan 2025 at 13:31:58 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
On 08/01/2025 21:55, Andrew wrote:
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type >>>>> that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any >>>>> legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them? >>>>
They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some >>>> basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than
speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should >>>> be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>
The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in >>> Dalston, might be of interest:
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>
It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle, >> but of course these are separate issues.
The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to
drivers (or riders) who kill people.
I think you’re aiming at the wrong target.
The rider was charged with a motor-vehicle offence, but the judge ruled
that his illegal electric bicycle wasn’t a motor vehicle, so he walked free.
Andrew <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> wrote in news:vlpb91$3h6nc$1@dont- email.me:
On 09/01/2025 20:07, Alan Lee wrote:
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.
I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.
You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.
On 9 Jan 2025 at 16:03:10 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Jan 2025 at 13:31:58 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
On 08/01/2025 21:55, Andrew wrote:
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type >>>>>> that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any >>>>>> legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them? >>>>>
They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some >>>>> basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than >>>>> speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed >>>>> 15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should >>>>> be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>
The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in >>>> Dalston, might be of interest:
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>
It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle, >>> but of course these are separate issues.
The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to
drivers (or riders) who kill people.
I think you’re aiming at the wrong target.
The rider was charged with a motor-vehicle offence, but the judge ruled
that his illegal electric bicycle wasn’t a motor vehicle, so he walked
free.
I suppose that could happen, but the local newspaper link above says he was found not guilty by the jury and gives no hint whatsoever of the judge saying that. Do you have another reference?
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Andrew <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> wrote in news:vlpb91$3h6nc$1@dont-
email.me:
On 09/01/2025 20:07, Alan Lee wrote:
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus >>>> need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.
I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high >>> leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.
You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.
There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Jan 2025 at 16:03:10 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Jan 2025 at 13:31:58 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
On 08/01/2025 21:55, Andrew wrote:
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type >>>>>>> that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any >>>>>>> legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them? >>>>>>
They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some >>>>>> basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than >>>>>> speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed >>>>>> 15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should >>>>>> be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>
The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in
Dalston, might be of interest:
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>
It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle,
but of course these are separate issues.
The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to >>>> drivers (or riders) who kill people.
I think you’re aiming at the wrong target.
The rider was charged with a motor-vehicle offence, but the judge ruled
that his illegal electric bicycle wasn’t a motor vehicle, so he walked >>> free.
I suppose that could happen, but the local newspaper link above says he was >> found not guilty by the jury and gives no hint whatsoever of the judge saying
that. Do you have another reference?
Regretfully I can’t find a comprehensive statement that includes all of the judge’s summing-up. The newspaper reporting seems to be a copy of some statement, as they are all very similar.
In the forum discussions that followed there was much discussion on this point, these being typical: “I find the court's opinion that a bicycle turned into a motorbike is still a bicycle is rather strange” and “the court decided it was a pedal cycle and thus the cyclist was found innocent
of all charges”, but it isn’t the proof that you seek. I recall the issue from some years ago but didn’t keep a record. Mea culpa.
On 10 Jan 2025 at 12:34:09 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Jan 2025 at 16:03:10 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Jan 2025 at 13:31:58 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
On 08/01/2025 21:55, Andrew wrote:
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type >>>>>>>> that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any >>>>>>>> legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them? >>>>>>>
They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some >>>>>>> basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than >>>>>>> speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed >>>>>>> 15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should
be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>
The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in
Dalston, might be of interest:
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>
It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle,
but of course these are separate issues.
The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to >>>>> drivers (or riders) who kill people.
I think you’re aiming at the wrong target.
The rider was charged with a motor-vehicle offence, but the judge ruled >>>> that his illegal electric bicycle wasn’t a motor vehicle, so he walked >>>> free.
I suppose that could happen, but the local newspaper link above says he was >>> found not guilty by the jury and gives no hint whatsoever of the judge saying
that. Do you have another reference?
Regretfully I can’t find a comprehensive statement that includes all of the
judge’s summing-up. The newspaper reporting seems to be a copy of some
statement, as they are all very similar.
In the forum discussions that followed there was much discussion on this
point, these being typical: “I find the court's opinion that a bicycle
turned into a motorbike is still a bicycle is rather strange” and “the >> court decided it was a pedal cycle and thus the cyclist was found innocent >> of all charges”, but it isn’t the proof that you seek. I recall the issue
from some years ago but didn’t keep a record. Mea culpa.
Forum contributors write irrelevant nonsense, shock, horror!
On 10 Jan 2025 at 10:59:46 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Andrew <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> wrote in news:vlpb91$3h6nc$1@dont-
email.me:
On 09/01/2025 20:07, Alan Lee wrote:
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal >>>>> bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus >>>>> need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and >>>>> there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they >>>>> have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the >>>>> pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.
I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high >>>> leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and >>>> pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.
You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a >>> special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.
There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use
illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the >> issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the >> financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)
It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable number of accidents.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 10:59:46 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Andrew <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> wrote in news:vlpb91$3h6nc$1@dont-
email.me:
On 09/01/2025 20:07, Alan Lee wrote:
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal >>>>>> bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without >>>>>> pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than >>>>>> 15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus >>>>>> need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and >>>>>> there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they >>>>>> have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the >>>>>> pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.
I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high >>>>> leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and >>>>> pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.
You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider >>>> laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a >>>> special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is >>>> greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was >>>> rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.
There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use
illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the >>> financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)
It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable >> number of accidents.
That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such
a view put forward in this group.
On 9 Jan 2025 at 13:31:58 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:
On 08/01/2025 21:55, Andrew wrote:
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any >>>> legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?
They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some
basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than
speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should >>> be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>
The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in >> Dalston, might be of interest:
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>
It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle, but of course these are separate issues.
The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to drivers (or riders) who kill people.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 10:59:46 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Andrew <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> wrote in news:vlpb91$3h6nc$1@dont-
email.me:
On 09/01/2025 20:07, Alan Lee wrote:
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal >>>>>> bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without >>>>>> pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than >>>>>> 15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus >>>>>> need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and >>>>>> there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they >>>>>> have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the >>>>>> pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.
I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high >>>>> leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and >>>>> pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.
You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider >>>> laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a >>>> special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is >>>> greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was >>>> rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.
There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use
illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the >>> financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)
It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable >> number of accidents.
That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such
a view put forward in this group.
On 10 Jan 2025 at 15:28:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 10:59:46 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Andrew <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> wrote in news:vlpb91$3h6nc$1@dont- >>>>> email.me:
On 09/01/2025 20:07, Alan Lee wrote:
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal >>>>>>> bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without >>>>>>> pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than >>>>>>> 15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus >>>>>>> need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and >>>>>>> there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they >>>>>>> have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the >>>>>>> pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.
I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high >>>>>> leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and >>>>>> pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.
You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider >>>>> laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a >>>>> special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is >>>>> greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was >>>>> rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.
There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported >>>> that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of >>>> bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use >>>> illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current >>>> climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the >>>> financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)
It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable >>> number of accidents.
That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and
their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being
placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such >> a view put forward in this group.
Why! It is a fundamental rule of road safety that you do the things likely to have the greatest effect. An irrational dislike of two-wheeled vehicles is not
a useful guide to policy.
On 10/01/2025 06:45 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 15:28:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 10:59:46 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Andrew <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> wrote in news:vlpb91$3h6nc$1@dont- >>>>>> email.me:
On 09/01/2025 20:07, Alan Lee wrote:
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal >>>>>>>> bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without >>>>>>>> pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than >>>>>>>> 15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus >>>>>>>> need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and >>>>>>>> there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they >>>>>>>> have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the >>>>>>>> pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.
I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and >>>>>>> pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.
You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider >>>>>> laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is >>>>>> greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was >>>>>> rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.
There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported >>>>> that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of >>>>> bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use >>>>> illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such >>>>> machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current >>>>> climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)
It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.
That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and >>> their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being
placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such >>> a view put forward in this group.
Why! It is a fundamental rule of road safety that you do the things likely to
have the greatest effect. An irrational dislike of two-wheeled vehicles is not
a useful guide to policy.
How about an entirely rational dislke of ILLEGAL two-wheeled vehicles
being ridden illegally?
On 10 Jan 2025 at 19:52:09 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 06:45 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 15:28:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 10:59:46 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Andrew <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> wrote in news:vlpb91$3h6nc$1@dont- >>>>>>> email.me:
On 09/01/2025 20:07, Alan Lee wrote:
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal >>>>>>>>> bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without >>>>>>>>> pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than >>>>>>>>> 15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and >>>>>>>>> there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they >>>>>>>>> have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the >>>>>>>>> pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it. >>>>>>>>>
I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and >>>>>>>> pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.
You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider >>>>>>> laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is >>>>>>> greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was >>>>>>> rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.
There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported >>>>>> that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian >>>>>> casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of >>>>>> bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use >>>>>> illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such >>>>>> machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current >>>>>> climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles. >>>>>>
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)
It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore >>>>> illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.
That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and >>>> their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being >>>> placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such >>>> a view put forward in this group.
Why! It is a fundamental rule of road safety that you do the things likely to
have the greatest effect. An irrational dislike of two-wheeled vehicles is not
a useful guide to policy.
How about an entirely rational dislke of ILLEGAL two-wheeled vehicles
being ridden illegally?
Such a dislike is entirely rational. But prioritising it over increasing safety from cars, such as by wider and well-enforced 20mph limits is not. I dislike cats, but I wouldn't seriously expect the police to prioritise regulating their behaviour.
As for lawful behaviour by a driver who has the misfortune to have a pedestrian run out in front of him (or in one notable usenet case, jump
off a bridge in front of him), it hard to see why a jury should be
anything but sympathetic to him. It could literally have happened to anyone.
On 10 Jan 2025 at 19:45:21 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
As for lawful behaviour by a driver who has the misfortune to have a
pedestrian run out in front of him (or in one notable usenet case, jump
off a bridge in front of him), it hard to see why a jury should be
anything but sympathetic to him. It could literally have happened to anyone.
In some cases I agree (were you especially exercised about the bridge jumper because he was also a cyclist in his spare time?)
but in a lot the cases of
pedestrians "jumping out" more cautious and considerate (of others' safety, not just their own) driving could avoid these collisions. For instance, if the
motorist in the Elona Grey case had been driving cautiously past the altercation on the pavement the death would probably not have happened; juries set an abysmally low standard of driving, presumably to match their own.
On 10/01/2025 08:15 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 19:45:21 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
As for lawful behaviour by a driver who has the misfortune to have a
pedestrian run out in front of him (or in one notable usenet case, jump
off a bridge in front of him), it hard to see why a jury should be
anything but sympathetic to him. It could literally have happened to anyone.
In some cases I agree (were you especially exercised about the bridge jumper >> because he was also a cyclist in his spare time?)
A good example of something the relevant lorry driver, driving along a
grade separated dual-carriageway, could not possibly have anticipated.
but in a lot the cases of
pedestrians "jumping out" more cautious and considerate (of others' safety, >> not just their own) driving could avoid these collisions. For instance, if the
motorist in the Elona Grey case had been driving cautiously past the
altercation on the pavement the death would probably not have happened;
juries set an abysmally low standard of driving, presumably to match their >> own.
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.
On 10/01/2025 08:07 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 19:52:09 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 06:45 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 15:28:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 10:59:46 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Andrew <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> wrote in news:vlpb91$3h6nc$1@dont- >>>>>>>> email.me:
On 09/01/2025 20:07, Alan Lee wrote:
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal >>>>>>>>>> bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without >>>>>>>>>> pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than >>>>>>>>>> 15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they >>>>>>>>>> have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it. >>>>>>>>>>
I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.
You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was >>>>>>>> rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.
There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported >>>>>>> that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian >>>>>>> casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of >>>>>>> bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use >>>>>>> illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such >>>>>>> machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current >>>>>>> climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles. >>>>>>>
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)
It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore >>>>>> illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.
That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and >>>>> their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being >>>>> placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such
a view put forward in this group.
Why! It is a fundamental rule of road safety that you do the things likely to
have the greatest effect. An irrational dislike of two-wheeled vehicles is not
a useful guide to policy.
How about an entirely rational dislke of ILLEGAL two-wheeled vehicles
being ridden illegally?
Such a dislike is entirely rational. But prioritising it over increasing
safety from cars, such as by wider and well-enforced 20mph limits is not. I >> dislike cats, but I wouldn't seriously expect the police to prioritise
regulating their behaviour.
The behaviour of cats is not a legal matter.
Did you think it was?
Remember what you said when you are run over by a criminal chav on a fairy-bike while you are walking along the footway or have stepped out
of your garden gate onto the footway.
On 10/01/2025 08:15 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 19:45:21 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
As for lawful behaviour by a driver who has the misfortune to have a
pedestrian run out in front of him (or in one notable usenet case, jump
off a bridge in front of him), it hard to see why a jury should be
anything but sympathetic to him. It could literally have happened to anyone.
In some cases I agree (were you especially exercised about the bridge jumper >> because he was also a cyclist in his spare time?)
A good example of something the relevant lorry driver, driving along a
grade separated dual-carriageway, could not possibly have anticipated.
but in a lot the cases of
pedestrians "jumping out" more cautious and considerate (of others' safety, >> not just their own) driving could avoid these collisions. For instance, if the
motorist in the Elona Grey case had been driving cautiously past the
altercation on the pavement the death would probably not have happened;
juries set an abysmally low standard of driving, presumably to match their >> own.
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.
On 10 Jan 2025 at 15:28:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 10:59:46 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Andrew <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> wrote in news:vlpb91$3h6nc$1@dont- >>>>> email.me:
On 09/01/2025 20:07, Alan Lee wrote:
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal >>>>>>> bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without >>>>>>> pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than >>>>>>> 15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus >>>>>>> need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and >>>>>>> there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they >>>>>>> have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the >>>>>>> pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.
I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high >>>>>> leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and >>>>>> pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.
You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider >>>>> laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a >>>>> special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is >>>>> greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was >>>>> rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.
There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported >>>> that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of >>>> bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use >>>> illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current >>>> climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the >>>> financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)
It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable >>> number of accidents.
That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and
their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being
placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such >> a view put forward in this group.
Why! It is a fundamental rule of road safety that you do the things likely to have the greatest effect.
An irrational dislike of two-wheeled vehicles is not
a useful guide to policy.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 15:28:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 10:59:46 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Andrew <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> wrote in news:vlpb91$3h6nc$1@dont- >>>>>> email.me:
On 09/01/2025 20:07, Alan Lee wrote:
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal >>>>>>>> bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without >>>>>>>> pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than >>>>>>>> 15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus >>>>>>>> need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and >>>>>>>> there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they >>>>>>>> have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the >>>>>>>> pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.
I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and >>>>>>> pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.
You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider >>>>>> laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is >>>>>> greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was >>>>>> rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.
There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported >>>>> that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of >>>>> bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use >>>>> illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such >>>>> machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current >>>>> climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)
It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.
That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and >>> their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being
placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such >>> a view put forward in this group.
Why! It is a fundamental rule of road safety that you do the things likely to
have the greatest effect.
If that is the case, then the tens of millions being squandered on ‘cycling infrastructure’ is a total waste of resources.
An irrational dislike of two-wheeled vehicles is not
a useful guide to policy.
I’ll be sure to watch out for such.
On 10 Jan 2025 at 20:26:04 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 08:15 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 19:45:21 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
As for lawful behaviour by a driver who has the misfortune to have a
pedestrian run out in front of him (or in one notable usenet case, jump >>>> off a bridge in front of him), it hard to see why a jury should be
anything but sympathetic to him. It could literally have happened to anyone.
In some cases I agree (were you especially exercised about the bridge jumper
because he was also a cyclist in his spare time?)
A good example of something the relevant lorry driver, driving along a
grade separated dual-carriageway, could not possibly have anticipated.
but in a lot the cases of
pedestrians "jumping out" more cautious and considerate (of others' safety, >>> not just their own) driving could avoid these collisions. For instance, if the
motorist in the Elona Grey case had been driving cautiously past the
altercation on the pavement the death would probably not have happened;
juries set an abysmally low standard of driving, presumably to match their >>> own.
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Oh yes they could! A fairly narrow pavement and an imminent intersection between a pedestrian with an abnormal gait and and elderly cyclist. I hope I would have slowed down
and possibly moved away from the kerb if I thought I would reach them about when they met. If it annoyed the people behind me, so be it.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
As for lawful behaviour by a driver who has the misfortune to have a
pedestrian run out in front of him (or in one notable usenet case, jump >>>> off a bridge in front of him), it hard to see why a jury should be
anything but sympathetic to him. It could literally have happened to anyone.
In some cases I agree (were you especially exercised about the bridge jumper
because he was also a cyclist in his spare time?)
A good example of something the relevant lorry driver, driving along a
grade separated dual-carriageway, could not possibly have anticipated.
but in a lot the cases of
pedestrians "jumping out" more cautious and considerate (of others' safety, >>> not just their own) driving could avoid these collisions. For instance, if the
motorist in the Elona Grey case had been driving cautiously past the
altercation on the pavement the death would probably not have happened;
juries set an abysmally low standard of driving, presumably to match their >>> own.
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But, really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both almost certainly unprotected people.
On 10 Jan 2025 at 20:13:11 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 08:07 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 19:52:09 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 06:45 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 15:28:45 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 10:59:46 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Andrew <andrew_d_may@hotmail.com> wrote in news:vlpb91$3h6nc$1@dont- >>>>>>>>> email.me:There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
On 09/01/2025 20:07, Alan Lee wrote:
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without >>>>>>>>>>> pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than >>>>>>>>>>> 15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it. >>>>>>>>>>>
I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.
You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority. >>>>>>>>
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian >>>>>>>> casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use >>>>>>>> illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such >>>>>>>> machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles. >>>>>>>>
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my >>>>>>>> spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)
It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore >>>>>>> illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.
That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and
their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being >>>>>> placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such
a view put forward in this group.
Why! It is a fundamental rule of road safety that you do the things likely to
have the greatest effect. An irrational dislike of two-wheeled vehicles is not
a useful guide to policy.
How about an entirely rational dislke of ILLEGAL two-wheeled vehicles
being ridden illegally?
Such a dislike is entirely rational. But prioritising it over increasing >>> safety from cars, such as by wider and well-enforced 20mph limits is not. I >>> dislike cats, but I wouldn't seriously expect the police to prioritise
regulating their behaviour.
The behaviour of cats is not a legal matter.
Did you think it was?
Remember what you said when you are run over by a criminal chav on a
fairy-bike while you are walking along the footway or have stepped out
of your garden gate onto the footway.
I will remember that being run over by a car in similar circumstances is much more likely,
and much more likely to cause injury if it happens. Ditto if I
trip over a cat.
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them
that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both >>almost certainly unprotected people.
I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all pedestrians!),
but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the other was breaking
the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly that it was not
possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to react to it. Perhaps
we should reintroduce the red flag law?
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian >>>> trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them
that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both
almost certainly unprotected people.
I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the
other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly
that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to
react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?
Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance,
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if
clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them
even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact they've already proven they have no road sense.
Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance, and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway.
On 12/01/2025 02:15 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:[RH had said:]
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian >>>>> trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident, >>>>> which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them
that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both
almost certainly unprotected people.
I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the
other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly
that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to
react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?
Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance,
Please cite the legal provision which created those "rules".
Act, Statutory Instrument, regulation number, please.
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if
clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them
even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact
they've already proven they have no road sense.
Imagine a highway consisting of one of those two foot "cycle lanes", a
ten foot carriageway lane, the centre line and then the opposite
carriageway lane and another kerbside "cycle lane".
If someone is riding a fairy-cycle along the centre of the so-called
"cycle lane", may the driver of a motor vehicle (a bus, for instance, or
a large delvery van), using the adjacent carriageway lane and staying in
the centre of that lane, lawfully overtake the person on the fairy-bike,
even if the gap is, perforce, less than the 1.74 yards you mentioned
above? Does the motor vehicle have to hang back and wait for an
opportunity to use the RH (often termed the "wrong") side of the road?
If there is no "cycle lane" at all, does that mean that no motor vehicle
on the carriageway may overtake the fairy-cyclist on the footway?
On 12 Jan 2025 at 16:02:02 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2025 02:15 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:[RH had said:]
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian >>>>>> trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident, >>>>>> which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds. >>>>>> No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them >>>>> that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both >>>>> almost certainly unprotected people.
I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the
other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly
that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to
react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?
Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance,
Please cite the legal provision which created those "rules".
Act, Statutory Instrument, regulation number, please.
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if
clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them
even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact >>> they've already proven they have no road sense.
Imagine a highway consisting of one of those two foot "cycle lanes", a
ten foot carriageway lane, the centre line and then the opposite
carriageway lane and another kerbside "cycle lane".
If someone is riding a fairy-cycle along the centre of the so-called
"cycle lane", may the driver of a motor vehicle (a bus, for instance, or
a large delvery van), using the adjacent carriageway lane and staying in
the centre of that lane, lawfully overtake the person on the fairy-bike,
even if the gap is, perforce, less than the 1.74 yards you mentioned
above? Does the motor vehicle have to hang back and wait for an
opportunity to use the RH (often termed the "wrong") side of the road?
Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious injury.
If there is no "cycle lane" at all, does that mean that no motor vehicle
on the carriageway may overtake the fairy-cyclist on the footway?
It would seem reasonable to apply the same 1.5m, some of which may be footway.
It is pretty offensive to drive much nearer than that to pedestrians on a narrow footway on a fast road, for that matter.
Don't forget everyone has a right to use the public highway, even pedestrians and horsedrawn carts.
On 12/01/2025 04:45 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Jan 2025 at 16:02:02 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2025 02:15 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:[RH had said:]
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian >>>>>>> trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident, >>>>>>> which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds. >>>>>>> No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them >>>>>> that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both >>>>>> almost certainly unprotected people.
I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the
other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly
that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to
react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?
Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken >>>> 1.5 metres clearance,
Please cite the legal provision which created those "rules".
Act, Statutory Instrument, regulation number, please.
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if
clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them
even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact >>>> they've already proven they have no road sense.
Imagine a highway consisting of one of those two foot "cycle lanes", a
ten foot carriageway lane, the centre line and then the opposite
carriageway lane and another kerbside "cycle lane".
If someone is riding a fairy-cycle along the centre of the so-called
"cycle lane", may the driver of a motor vehicle (a bus, for instance, or >>> a large delvery van), using the adjacent carriageway lane and staying in >>> the centre of that lane, lawfully overtake the person on the fairy-bike, >>> even if the gap is, perforce, less than the 1.74 yards you mentioned
above? Does the motor vehicle have to hang back and wait for an
opportunity to use the RH (often termed the "wrong") side of the road?
Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to >> make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in >> the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone >> makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow
to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the >> risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious
injury.
I don't think you can have read that properly.
I was describing a situation where the motor vehicle was *not* directly behind the person on the fairy-cycle and where the fairy-cycle and the motor-vehicle had separate parallel lanes from each other.
It was posited because of the assertion that nearly two yards "must" be
left laterally between vehicles..
Do you still give the same answer?
If there is no "cycle lane" at all, does that mean that no motor vehicle >>> on the carriageway may overtake the fairy-cyclist on the footway?
It would seem reasonable to apply the same 1.5m, some of which may be footway.
It is pretty offensive to drive much nearer than that to pedestrians on a
narrow footway on a fast road, for that matter.
Oddly, no-one has suggested that gap or anything like it for pedestrians
If it were the law, it would put footway fairy-cyclists well beyond the law.
Don't forget everyone has a right to use the public highway, even pedestrians
and horsedrawn carts.
Does the "1.5m" (they mean 1.64 yards) apply to everyone being passed, then?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance, and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway.
And, of course, let’s not forget the unfortunate footway pedestrians and island bus-stoppers who would also like 1.5 metres of clearance from cyclists.
Auriol Grey would have been happy with half of that, but she effectively
got time in pokey just for asking, in her fashion, before the Appeal Court ruled in her favour about her shambolic trial.
On 12/01/2025 04:45 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:snip
Don't forget everyone has a right to use the public highway, even pedestrians
and horsedrawn carts.
Does the "1.5m" (they mean 1.64 yards) apply to everyone being passed, then?
On 12 Jan 2025 at 17:10:55 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2025 04:45 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Jan 2025 at 16:02:02 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2025 02:15 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:[RH had said:]
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident, >>>>>>>> which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds. >>>>>>>> No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them >>>>>>> that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But, >>>>>>> really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a >>>>>>> cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both >>>>>>> almost certainly unprotected people.
I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the >>>>>> other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly >>>>>> that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to >>>>>> react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?
Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken >>>>> 1.5 metres clearance,
Please cite the legal provision which created those "rules".
Act, Statutory Instrument, regulation number, please.
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if >>>>> clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them >>>>> even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact >>>>> they've already proven they have no road sense.
Imagine a highway consisting of one of those two foot "cycle lanes", a >>>> ten foot carriageway lane, the centre line and then the opposite
carriageway lane and another kerbside "cycle lane".
If someone is riding a fairy-cycle along the centre of the so-called
"cycle lane", may the driver of a motor vehicle (a bus, for instance, or >>>> a large delvery van), using the adjacent carriageway lane and staying in >>>> the centre of that lane, lawfully overtake the person on the fairy-bike, >>>> even if the gap is, perforce, less than the 1.74 yards you mentioned
above? Does the motor vehicle have to hang back and wait for an
opportunity to use the RH (often termed the "wrong") side of the road?
Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to >>> make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in
the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone >>> makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow
to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the
risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious >>> injury.
I don't think you can have read that properly.
I was describing a situation where the motor vehicle was *not* directly
behind the person on the fairy-cycle and where the fairy-cycle and the
motor-vehicle had separate parallel lanes from each other.
It was posited because of the assertion that nearly two yards "must" be
left laterally between vehicles..
Do you still give the same answer?
Of course. What difference do you think white paint on the road would make?
If there is no "cycle lane" at all, does that mean that no motor vehicle >>>> on the carriageway may overtake the fairy-cyclist on the footway?
It would seem reasonable to apply the same 1.5m, some of which may be footway.
It is pretty offensive to drive much nearer than that to pedestrians on a >>> narrow footway on a fast road, for that matter.
Oddly, no-one has suggested that gap or anything like it for pedestrians
If it were the law, it would put footway fairy-cyclists well beyond the law.
Unless it is a shared use path then they are already "well beyond the law".
If it is a shared use path I think some rules are required. But especially that cyclists achieving a decent speed should use the road rather than a shared use path. This would be difficult to enforce, but that does not mean a rule should not be devised.
Don't forget everyone has a right to use the public highway, even pedestrians
and horsedrawn carts.
Does the "1.5m" (they mean 1.64 yards) apply to everyone being passed, then?
On 12/01/2025 05:23 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Jan 2025 at 17:10:55 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2025 04:45 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Jan 2025 at 16:02:02 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2025 02:15 pm, Roland Perry wrote:Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:[RH had said:]
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident, >>>>>>>>> which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds. >>>>>>>>> No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them >>>>>>>> that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But, >>>>>>>> really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a >>>>>>>> cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both >>>>>>>> almost certainly unprotected people.
I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the >>>>>>> other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly >>>>>>> that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to >>>>>>> react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?
Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken >>>>>> 1.5 metres clearance,
Please cite the legal provision which created those "rules".
Act, Statutory Instrument, regulation number, please.
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if >>>>>> clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them >>>>>> even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact >>>>>> they've already proven they have no road sense.
Imagine a highway consisting of one of those two foot "cycle lanes", a >>>>> ten foot carriageway lane, the centre line and then the opposite
carriageway lane and another kerbside "cycle lane".
If someone is riding a fairy-cycle along the centre of the so-called >>>>> "cycle lane", may the driver of a motor vehicle (a bus, for instance, or >>>>> a large delvery van), using the adjacent carriageway lane and staying in >>>>> the centre of that lane, lawfully overtake the person on the fairy-bike, >>>>> even if the gap is, perforce, less than the 1.74 yards you mentioned >>>>> above? Does the motor vehicle have to hang back and wait for an
opportunity to use the RH (often termed the "wrong") side of the road? >>>>
make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in
the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone
makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow
to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the
risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious >>>> injury.
I don't think you can have read that properly.
I was describing a situation where the motor vehicle was *not* directly
behind the person on the fairy-cycle and where the fairy-cycle and the
motor-vehicle had separate parallel lanes from each other.
It was posited because of the assertion that nearly two yards "must" be
left laterally between vehicles..
Do you still give the same answer?
Of course. What difference do you think white paint on the road would make?
So is there no point at all in painting the carriageway in separate
lames for traffic?
On 12 Jan 2025 at 17:10:55 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It was posited because of the assertion that nearly two yards "must" be
left laterally between vehicles..
Do you still give the same answer?
Of course. What difference do you think white paint on the road would make?
On 12 Jan 2025 17:23:11 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 12 Jan 2025 at 17:10:55 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It was posited because of the assertion that nearly two yards "must" be
left laterally between vehicles..
Do you still give the same answer?
Of course. What difference do you think white paint on the road would make?
All the difference. If your vehicle is wholly within your lane, and a different vehicle is wholly within an adjacent lane, with neither vehicle overlapping the line at all, then it is by definition acceptable to pass
that other vehicle (or be passed by that other vehicle) without either vehicle needing to deviate from its course. That's the whole point of dividing a carriageway into lanes.
It is, of course, good practice for all vehicular road users to remain centred in their lane as far as possible other than when explicitly changing lanes or making a turning manoeuvre[1], and failing to do so is not only inconsiderate but potentially dangerous (because it makes you vulnerable to
a vehicle straying out of an adjacent lane). And if you are about to pass a vehicle which is not exhibiting good lane discipline (eg by getting very close to the divider with your lane, or clearly weaving within its own lane) then it can be sensible to move over a bit yourself, just in case they do actually cross the line. But there's no general requirement to disregard normal lane discipline under normal circumstances just because the vehicle
in the adjacent lane is a bicycle.
Where a carriageway is not divided into separate lanes, and you wish to overtake a narrow vehicle (such as a bicycle) ahead of you, then the recommendation is to give at least 1.5m spacing because that's the spacing that separate lanes will typically give. And yes, that does mean that if you can't give that much spacing without entering the oncoming carriageway, but are unable to do so because of oncoming traffic, then it isn't, at that point, safe to overtake - you need to wait until the oncoming carriageway is clear for you to move into, just as you would when overtaking a wider
vehicle such as a car or tractor. But you only have to make that estimation when it isn't already marked out for you. If it is marked out as lanes, you have a reasonable presumption that the lanes can be relied on to give sufficient separation for normal road users.
[1] Other than vehicles carrying abnormal loads, obviously, but those are a special case for all sorts of highway regulations, not just lane discipline.
Mark
On 12 Jan 2025 at 21:47:30 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 12 Jan 2025 17:23:11 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 12 Jan 2025 at 17:10:55 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It was posited because of the assertion that nearly two yards "must" be >>>> left laterally between vehicles..
Do you still give the same answer?
Of course. What difference do you think white paint on the road would make?
All the difference. If your vehicle is wholly within your lane, and a
different vehicle is wholly within an adjacent lane, with neither vehicle
overlapping the line at all, then it is by definition acceptable to pass
that other vehicle (or be passed by that other vehicle) without either
vehicle needing to deviate from its course. That's the whole point of
dividing a carriageway into lanes.
It is, of course, good practice for all vehicular road users to remain
centred in their lane as far as possible other than when explicitly changing >> lanes or making a turning manoeuvre[1], and failing to do so is not only
inconsiderate but potentially dangerous (because it makes you vulnerable to >> a vehicle straying out of an adjacent lane). And if you are about to pass a >> vehicle which is not exhibiting good lane discipline (eg by getting very
close to the divider with your lane, or clearly weaving within its own lane) >> then it can be sensible to move over a bit yourself, just in case they do
actually cross the line. But there's no general requirement to disregard
normal lane discipline under normal circumstances just because the vehicle >> in the adjacent lane is a bicycle.
Where a carriageway is not divided into separate lanes, and you wish to
overtake a narrow vehicle (such as a bicycle) ahead of you, then the
recommendation is to give at least 1.5m spacing because that's the spacing >> that separate lanes will typically give. And yes, that does mean that if you >> can't give that much spacing without entering the oncoming carriageway, but >> are unable to do so because of oncoming traffic, then it isn't, at that
point, safe to overtake - you need to wait until the oncoming carriageway is >> clear for you to move into, just as you would when overtaking a wider
vehicle such as a car or tractor. But you only have to make that estimation >> when it isn't already marked out for you. If it is marked out as lanes, you >> have a reasonable presumption that the lanes can be relied on to give
sufficient separation for normal road users.
[1] Other than vehicles carrying abnormal loads, obviously, but those are a >> special case for all sorts of highway regulations, not just lane discipline. >>
Mark
Well if that is your interpretation of the rules then it is an unmitigated disaster in the case of cyle lanes for three reasons:
1. Many cycle lanes are only usable for the outer foot or so because the road is potholed, ridged or full of gullies for the inner part of the lane;
2. Many cycle lanes would still be much too narrow for safe clearance even if the cyclist could ride in the middle of them;
3. Car drivers do not treat the white line delineating a cycle lane as they would a lane marking for motor vehicles, they treat the white line as they would a carriageway side line and drive close to the left of their lane rather
than in the middle of it.
So I really hope your advice is not followed or people will be consistently passing cyclists at less than half the recommended distance.
On 12 Jan 2025 at 21:47:30 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
If it is marked out as lanes, you
have a reasonable presumption that the lanes can be relied on to give
sufficient separation for normal road users.
Well if that is your interpretation of the rules then it is an unmitigated >disaster in the case of cyle lanes for three reasons:
1. Many cycle lanes are only usable for the outer foot or so because the road >is potholed, ridged or full of gullies for the inner part of the lane;
2. Many cycle lanes would still be much too narrow for safe clearance even if >the cyclist could ride in the middle of them;
3. Car drivers do not treat the white line delineating a cycle lane as they >would a lane marking for motor vehicles, they treat the white line as they >would a carriageway side line and drive close to the left of their lane rather >than in the middle of it.
On 12 Jan 2025 at 16:02:02 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2025 02:15 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:[RH had said:]
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian >>>>>> trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident, >>>>>> which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds. >>>>>> No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them >>>>> that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both >>>>> almost certainly unprotected people.
I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the
other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly
that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to
react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?
Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance,
Please cite the legal provision which created those "rules".
Act, Statutory Instrument, regulation number, please.
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if
clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them
even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact >>> they've already proven they have no road sense.
Imagine a highway consisting of one of those two foot "cycle lanes", a
ten foot carriageway lane, the centre line and then the opposite
carriageway lane and another kerbside "cycle lane".
If someone is riding a fairy-cycle along the centre of the so-called
"cycle lane", may the driver of a motor vehicle (a bus, for instance, or
a large delvery van), using the adjacent carriageway lane and staying in
the centre of that lane, lawfully overtake the person on the fairy-bike,
even if the gap is, perforce, less than the 1.74 yards you mentioned
above? Does the motor vehicle have to hang back and wait for an
opportunity to use the RH (often termed the "wrong") side of the road?
Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious injury.
On 2025-01-12, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to >> make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in >> the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone >> makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow
to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the >> risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious
injury.
The function of gutter lanes (also known as murder strips) is to let
councils tick boxes. They make the road more dangerous than it would
be with no bike lane. The standards say that a dashed-line cycle lane
should be at least 2 metres wide, but unfortunately they are not
enforced.
On 12 Jan 2025 at 16:02:02 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2025 02:15 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:[RH had said:]
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian >>>>>> trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident, >>>>>> which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds. >>>>>> No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them
that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both >>>>> almost certainly unprotected people.
I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the
other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly
that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to
react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?
Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance,
Please cite the legal provision which created those "rules".
Act, Statutory Instrument, regulation number, please.
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if
clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them
even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact >>> they've already proven they have no road sense.
Imagine a highway consisting of one of those two foot "cycle lanes", a
ten foot carriageway lane, the centre line and then the opposite
carriageway lane and another kerbside "cycle lane".
If someone is riding a fairy-cycle along the centre of the so-called
"cycle lane", may the driver of a motor vehicle (a bus, for instance, or
a large delvery van), using the adjacent carriageway lane and staying in
the centre of that lane, lawfully overtake the person on the fairy-bike,
even if the gap is, perforce, less than the 1.74 yards you mentioned
above? Does the motor vehicle have to hang back and wait for an
opportunity to use the RH (often termed the "wrong") side of the road?
Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious injury.
If there is no "cycle lane" at all, does that mean that no motor vehicle
on the carriageway may overtake the fairy-cyclist on the footway?
It would seem reasonable to apply the same 1.5m, some of which may be footway.
It is pretty offensive to drive much nearer than that to pedestrians on a narrow footway on a fast road, for that matter.
Don't forget everyone has a right to use the public highway, even pedestrians and horsedrawn carts.
If 1.5 m is deemed to be the minimum safe distance a car driver must give a >cyclist, surely this indicates no cyclist should get closer than 1.5 m to a >car.
No more squeezing between lines of cars. No more squeezing between the kerb >and a car. No more hanging onto the rear of vehicles to get pulled along.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:06:33 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-12, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to >>> make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in
the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone >>> makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow
to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the
risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious >>> injury.
The function of gutter lanes (also known as murder strips) is to let >>councils tick boxes. They make the road more dangerous than it would
be with no bike lane. The standards say that a dashed-line cycle lane >>should be at least 2 metres wide, but unfortunately they are not
enforced.
But you're not going to fix that problem by encouraging motorists to take evading action whenever they encounter a cyclist in a too-narrow lane. On
the contrary, if road users get used to just finding a tolerable workaround then that merely encourages councils to install yet more sub-standard lanes.
On 2025-01-13, Mark Goodge wrote:
But you're not going to fix that problem by encouraging motorists to take
evading action whenever they encounter a cyclist in a too-narrow lane. On
the contrary, if road users get used to just finding a tolerable workaround >> then that merely encourages councils to install yet more sub-standard lanes.
Of course councils should be forced to make all cycle lanes comply
with the standards. But at the same time motorists should be forced to
comply with overtaking standards --- for safety --- regardless of the
paint.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:57:04 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-13, Mark Goodge wrote:
But you're not going to fix that problem by encouraging motorists to take >>> evading action whenever they encounter a cyclist in a too-narrow lane. On >>> the contrary, if road users get used to just finding a tolerable workaround >>> then that merely encourages councils to install yet more sub-standard lanes.
Of course councils should be forced to make all cycle lanes comply
with the standards. But at the same time motorists should be forced to
comply with overtaking standards --- for safety --- regardless of the
paint.
My point is that encouraging road users to disregard road markings won't improve safety overall.
Mark
"Mark Goodge" wrote:
My point is that encouraging road users to disregard road markings won't
improve safety overall.
We shall have to disagree. Firstly because it would be too dangerous to fail to give cyclists in inadequate lanes specific clearance; secondly,
despite the admittedly low standards of most drivers I think most can easily draw the
distinction between modern roads with adequate cycle lanes and the feeble attempts to draw lanes on older roads. Thirdly, we aren't inviting drivers to drive in cycle lanes, just to actually watch for bicycles and be ready to give
them more clearance than the lane affords; after all, we all watch out for car
drivers arbitrarily leaving their lanes, it just happens somewhat less often.
My point is that encouraging road users to disregard road markings won't
improve safety overall.
We shall have to disagree. Firstly because it would be too dangerous to fail >to give cyclists in inadequate lanes specific clearance; secondly, despite the >admittedly low standards of most drivers I think most can easily draw the >distinction between modern roads with adequate cycle lanes and the feeble >attempts to draw lanes on older roads.
In message <7806808069.8115a72c@uninhabited.net>, at 21:54:28 on Wed, 15
Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
My point is that encouraging road users to disregard road markings won't >>> improve safety overall.
We shall have to disagree. Firstly because it would be too dangerous to fail >>to give cyclists in inadequate lanes specific clearance; secondly, despite the
admittedly low standards of most drivers I think most can easily draw the >>distinction between modern roads with adequate cycle lanes and the feeble >>attempts to draw lanes on older roads.
Somewhere like this, the lanes are stupidly narrow anyway, and when a
bus hangs around at the stop on the right, chaos ensues.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/C1HdvwXYNv6FD9XP8
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:48:15 |
| Calls: | 9,809 |
| Calls today: | 11 |
| Files: | 13,754 |
| Messages: | 6,190,345 |