theplanlessman

One of those things is illegal, the other is not. One puts others at risk of injury and death, the other does not.

Not necessarily inventing laws, some may be applying their local laws to a video of a bike ride in a different jurisdiction.

I read it as being a riff off of "speed" cameras, which are obviously cameras triggered by speed and not cameras that capture the concept of speed on film.

Just went down the legislation.gov rabbit hole, and it seems there are regulations on headlight height and angle that have been in place since 1989, but unfortunately no maximum power or brightness restrictions.

Which means that although a driver could be fined for using excessively bright headlights, the manufacturer of the car could not be fined for making the car like that in the first place.

Perhaps if things like these noise cameras gain in popularity it will encourage the lawmakers to look at other issues like this one.

I really hoped that if nothing else, maybe the lockdowns would at least have taught us how much better it is in so many ways to not have as many cars on the road, but that seems not to be the case. It's certainly not helped by the fact that here in the UK bus services are being slashed left right and centre. And then we have the PM vocally supporting the pro-car movement...

Legally speaking filtering is fine for both bicycles and motorcycles in the UK. I imagine if someone is the type to get mad at a motorcyclist doing this then they'd probably get mad at a cyclist too.

I will say that there's a massive size disparity between the two, with motorbikes capable of weighing 400kg while the average road bike is closer to 10kg. I know which one I would be more nervous about when I see it weaving by me.

This was filmed in London, which actually has some of the best cycling infrastructure in the UK (though that's a low bar to pass). It seems, however, that he's taking a route that happens to not have much of that infrastructure on it.

Though as you say, people should be able to cycle however they please, and it is enshrined in UK law that cyclists are not required to use cycling infrastructure. In this case I'd say he's going fast enough that he'd be a danger to the slower cyclists and pedestrians on the cycle paths and multi-use pathways, so riding on the road makes more sense anyway.

What's funny is that it's only that way because of all the people driving rather than cycling. If the people who could get to where they're going without a car (bike/bus/train/whatever) used those alternative forms of transportation, then it would make the roads much clearer for the few people who actually need to drive (trades/emergency vehicles, etc.).

Both the total throughput and average speed of these roads would increase if more people were on bikes and buses. Unfortunately if it were to ever happen I fear people would just see the clearer roads and think, "Hey, the roads are clear now, I should drive again!" and we'd be right back to square one.

There is already the regulation in the Highway Code:

114: "You MUST NOT use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users"

The "MUST NOT" indicates that this is a legal requirement and so it is a criminal offense to disobey it. Now if we could get the police to actually ENFORCE the legal requirements in the Highway Code, then maybe things might improve on the roads.

So you think cars create a dangerous and inhospitable environment unsuitable for humans? I think we can agree on that point.

35 years old and I've never learned to drive. I've just been lucky enough to never had the need. I've always lived either in the centre of a city or in a place where public transport just made more sense (London and Japan). I currently live in neither of those situations, but I get by just fine on my bicycle.

My wife drives, though only rarely, and she's pushing me to get around to learning.