Cycling and the law: now is the time for the government to deal with close passing properly

I'm not convinced about presumed responsibility to be honest... As someone who does drive as well as cycle, I can attest to there being some absolute numpties out there on 2 wheels too. While I agree it'll make cycling safer, it's not fair to punish motorists for poor cycling. Also, it'll make some cyclists feel invincible, but you can still get killed, regardless of whos "fault" it is.

The Holy Grail remains a far better network of segregated cycle lanes and infrastructure.

 

I disagree!  Cycle lanes are generaly unfit for purpose for road cyclists.   Surfaces are generally neglected, poorly maintained, covered in debris and they often have vehicles parked on them.  They have road furniture obstructing them and they often end unexpectedly just when you need them, where the road narrows at a central traffic island for example.  Where there are side roads there are usually give way markings on the cycle lanes so that you have to slow or stop at every side turning.

No the answer is mutual respect enforced by changes in legislation supported by driver education.

For far too long the HC is a one sided load of plop that is used only when it suits for plod, CPS, defence lawyers and judges not to mention joe public.

Yet again this evening a learner driver overtook parked cars extremely close to the parked vehicles, I was central in my lane to try to dissuade them from pushing past but no, still they came forward. The instructor insisted I had plenty of space, not in my opinion, not when you've next to zero leeway on either side, and that's with a learner never mind an experienced driver.

It's this mentality that is instilled in drivers as might is right, cutting it close is acceptable because I haven't actually hit you. It's precisely this that needs to change and change in a big, big way.

This most definitely has to apply to oncoming as well as overtaking, particularly where the person presenting the harm makes next to zero acknowledgement or adjustment to avoid threatening another road users or actually making contact.

That incident with the timetraillists and the 4x4 with a boat on a trailer, 50% fault on the injured party is utterly ludicrous. Even when you're battle hardened you can't help but think when is the next incident going to occur, when is the next loud/hard accelerating vehicle and/or shadow looming over your shoulder going to be the one.

How people on bikes are attacked and threatened every single day or the fear of being hurt is just like walking along the footway and every few seconds someone makes you feel fear of harm with a deadly weapon. So much so that you even consider giving up walking anywhere. Even worse if you're walking somewhere and someone sledgehammers you in your head the police, justice system and joe public blame you for your injuries.

As I said previously, if CUK or someone with a lot of weight decided to take the government to the high court/european court of human rights I'd put £500 into the pot. If it had any chance of forcing the gov to act so that it makes me feel safer, my grandkids feel safer, makes it safer for me as a driver and for others, changes the whole ethos of how we approach using the roads then it would be worth every penny.

At the moment, even those sworn to keep the peace are too often not interested in keeping to their oath and too interested in blaming the victims, the MET police and the way they dealt with the Michael Mason case is one of the most disgusting travesties of justice.

If nothing happens now we will carry on being told (as per the coach turning thread) that we must get out the way all the time, that it's the vulnerable that should look out all the time and bear the greater responsibility.

Just like the A63 farce and forcing the vulnerable off the roads, why don't plod, government, motoring orgs (rememeber Jet trying to force through helmets for child cyclists around 2004) not fucking blame rape victims, why not tell those women and men that they need to wear a device to to try to prevent being raped or being stabbed and that you shouldn't go places where this might happen (which is almost anywhere ffs!), stab victims and not wearing a stab vest, tough shit, you're own fault.

Yeah, thought not you bent, double standard fuckers.

Rant over.

"a regular commuting cyclist could expect to ride daily for 8,000 years before being killed on the roads."

I'm hoping to have retired before that, but I expect millenials will still be working to pay my pension, so we need to consider reducing death-in-service payouts.

+1. Any trial in court of dangerous driving iinevitably has a jury or judge who drive cars and probably don't know what it's like to be close passed.

I have said it many times.

Presumed Liability is the only way forward. A law that makes the most powerful road user automatically at fault in the event of an accident has to be passed.

For a country that is apparently a world leader we are only one of four countries in Europe without this legislation (Romania, Cyprus & Malta). At the moment there is no obvious consequence for dubious actions using a vehicle against a cyclist so attitudes reflect that. Presumed liability will instantly put all road users on a level playing field relating to their potential to do harm to others.

Whether or not they're actually dangerous, close passes are certainly not any fun.  

"Here, try this for your local journeys.  It's a bit like a roller coaster because you're actually quite safe but there will be some degree of trauma as you're regularly shaken up (oh, and you'd better wear this crash helmet, just in case).  What do you mean, 'no chance!', don't you see it's good for you?"

We need to make cycling be and be seen to be both safe and pleasant.

Excellent op-ed, Mark; thank you.