whats this about plans to make drivers of motor vehicles liable no matter whose fault it is, in an accident between a pedal cycle and a car!? what a total load of crap!!!!!! how can you be liable for something thats not your fault! all the idiot cyclist on the internet come out with, well it works in the netherlands! yeh great well their legal system is a total joke anyway!!!!! anyone think that we should be held liable for a cyclists injuries if they cycle into us?! and then have to pay an excess asuming we ll also loose our no claims!!??

be a bit of a bad thing for those of you who live in places like cambridge london and oxford!!!!!

well as a regular cyclist I would not object to any proposal that would mean car drivers are forced to be more considerate to cyclists.

I suggest you get your fat arse out of your car and onto a bike, then may be you'll begin to understand.

Unfortunately I doubt it will happen over here.

Where did you hear this then???

Sounds a way bad idea. Cyclists are crazy mofos as it is, if they can claim a nice new bike by crashing in to you it will be chaos...

Personally I think cyclists should have licenses and insurance. I've seen too many people be injured by cyclists mowing people down on zebra crossings after deciding they don't have to stop and in the absense of insurance there's nothing you can do apart from getting back off the floor and (if they've hung around) give 'em a smack.

I'm all for cycling. I just don't understand why so many treat pedestrians as moving targets...

Without an official law in place I believe cyclists are very rarely found to be at fault anyway. They may have a deduction made in their "award for injuries if it can be proven that they were riding like a tit but generally the motorist bears the full brunt anyway.

When I worked in motor claims it was always seen as a bit of a non-starter trying to suggest the cyclist was at fault.

Well, we're already regarded as guilty until proved innocent if we hit a pedestrian!
To me unless you hit a pedestrian on the pavement or a zebra crossing, or whilst speeding (fairly excessively) or whilst drunk or on drugs - how can it possibly be yor fault??? By definition cars drive on the road & pedestrians walk on the pavement, hence if car connects with pedestrian on the road it HAS to be the pedestrians fault, surely - he shouldn't have been there!
This is merely an extension of the same thing - as ever blame the motorist, don't let's worry about the real cause - bit like global warming.
If they want to make a real impact on the death toll on the roads then separate cars & trucks, & make more separation than currently exists between cyclists, pedestrians & cars/trucks (we can safely ignore motorcyclists - they obviously have a death wish anyway!). If we had more bridges/subways instead of pedestrian Xings that would be a start - oh!,no, wait, that would cost money, an investment - we don't do investments anymore in this country do we!

you have made enough assumptions there?
fat arse?! as a member of the armed forces i have to stay fit for my job. i ve ran the london marathon four times and have done the great south run pretty much every year i ve not been deployed for. so don t assume that because i drive a car(as you do to!) that i m fat!
Its nothing to do with how careful any body is on a bike or a car! the whole principle is if we should be held liable for something that is not our bloody fault!
where do you stop being liable ?! if a cyclist cycles into your parked car?! and claims damages against you then?! if you can t see the stupidity in that then maybe you need to move to the netherlands!!!!
if i hit a cyclist and its my fault sue me if its there fault i should be able to sue them!

It's been common knowledge for a few years now i belive it's a good thing but like all good things there are downsides to it

They should make it law that cyclists have insurance and be made to obey traffic lights, zebra crossings and other highway requirements then people may be more tolernt to cyclists IMHO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 02GF74
I suggest you get your fat arse out of your car and onto a bike, then may be you'll begin to understand.

---

there was a TV program on about it the other night. and its been in the papers alot!
And couldn t agree more there needs to be ore seperation on the roads! in netherlands dedicated cycle ways are everywhere!!!! unlike here.
yet again i ve started a heated debate. oops!!!!! think the only thing i ve taken from this is how important having legal cover on your insurance is!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by mad_dogpompeyif you can t see the stupidity in that then maybe you need to move to the netherlands!!!!

---

I guess it's the goverment trying to force motorists to be more considerate to cyclists, I think this is poorly judged at the moment but could show some good intent. I am a regular cyclist and driver and only one side of this arguement regularly threatens the life of the other. Only cyclists know what it's like.

IMHO it's a good idea to make motorists more considerate, but a blanket rule to make the car driver liable in any incident with a cyclist is just asking for trouble. Also, if we are trying to make things fairer for all road users, cyclists have to understand that the rules of the road apply to them too: stop at red lights, don't go up one way streets the wrong way, signal before and while manoeuvring, etc.

I would have thought there will be a lot of dodgey insurance claims occuring.

[If they want to make a real impact on the death toll on the roads then separate cars & trucks, & make more separation than currently exists between cyclists, pedestrians & cars/trucks (we can safely ignore motorcyclists - they obviously have a death wish anyway!). If we had more bridges/subways instead of pedestrian Xings that would be a start - oh!,no, wait, that would cost money, an investment - we don't do investments anymore in this country do we!

quote:

---

Originally posted by philw
I would have thought there will be a lot of dodgey insurance claims occuring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Humbug
IMHO it's a good idea to make motorists more considerate, but a blanket rule to make the car driver liable in any incident with a cyclist is just asking for trouble.

No it isn't anything to do about that. The car driver being insured and held to be responsible will then have to claim on his insurance. They will have to pay for the ambulance, the medical care, the loss of earnings and all the usual rubbish with the poor motorist unable to defend them selves.

The goverment saves all the mony and appears to be doing their bit for global warming etc etc. This remember is the same goverment who is making it law that if you challenge a speeding ticket, even if you are proved innocent, will still have to pay the court costs. The idea being we will all just cough up the £60 knowing it will cost more to be innocent.

---

austin man - 14/11/09 at 12:23 PM

big brother state, next thing we will all need to have onboard camera. A lot of arguments for and against as I think we can all agree there are the idiots out there on bikes and there ar really concientious bike riders as there are car drivers.

Sometimes I think even the club / professional riders show no consideration especially when they ride 3 abreast at 20mph on a 60mph stretch and fail to even drop in to single file to let cars pass.

---

nitram38 - 14/11/09 at 12:24 PM

Ahem, I live in london.
Cyclists, who ignore red lights, ride on the wrong side of the road, the wrong way down one way streets, no lights or reflective clothing, cycling up the right hand side to turn left across the front of my car, etc, etc.
I've cycled and I wouldn't dare do this stuff, but cyclists today do not care.
I have a simple solution.
My car carries a permenent video recorder (T-eye ADR 3000). If they crash into me or pull off some stupid manoveure I have the evidence against them.
I suggest a few more people buy these devices.

As an aside, Under the Road Traffic Act 1956, in the event of an accident by a motorised vechile with a non-motorised vehicle or pedestrian, the motorised vehicle owner pays the ambulance fees...........so this blame stuff is not new

[Edited on 14/11/2009 by nitram38]

---

adithorp - 14/11/09 at 12:39 PM

As a cyclist, yes, cyclist should obay traffic lights, one way streets, not ride on footpaths, etc. But then as a driver, drivers should obay them as well... but add in use there indicators and mirrors, stop using thier mobiles, stick to the speed limits, etc.
The statistics show very few cyclist/car accidents are the cyclist fault...and the first thing the driver says is "I didn't see you"! so add, look where they're going/ get their eyesight checked.

Whoever is at fault, they should be held responsible. If you're a cyclist then get insured; Join Britsh Cycling or CTC (Insurance included in both) or add it to your houshold cover (if it's not already there).

Not all cyclist are idiots as aren't all drivers or all pedestians. If we all stuck to the rules then there'd be a lot fewer accidents and we wouldn't have any need for these proposals.


adrian

---

Agriv8 - 14/11/09 at 01:01 PM

just changing the angle slightly but still relevant.

Does this not apply to hourses and riders already ? Ie if they take a dislike to your car the can put the hoves through the bonnet and there is nothing you can do about it appart from claim on your insurance. could be wrong ( usually am )

regards

Agriv8

---

02GF74 - 14/11/09 at 01:04 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Humbug
cyclists have to understand that the rules of the road apply to them too: stop at red lights, don't go up one way streets the wrong way, signal before and while manoeuvring, etc.

---

what is the big issue with stopping at red traffic light?

if the road is clear, then give me a reason why you cannot cycle, or indeed drive across it.

I commute on bike - fortunately can do most of it away from cars - and from experience I know for a fact that the further I am away from a car, the safer I am. That is the situation crossing a junction on ared traffice when there is no traffic coming form eiher. You won;tbe able to convince me otherwise.

And don;t hey have turn right on LED in US? Same thing but instead of goiung straighyt across you err, like, turn right. Obvoulsy comon sense and observation means you do not do that when there is traffic about to smack into you.

signal before manouevring? yeah, rigyt os what aboutr cars? There have been too many occasious I am at corssing and vehicl on my riught will cut across my path, at times deliverately knowing that as a cyclist I will have to give way iunless I want to be injured.

A cuclist not giving signlas makes it safer for them since the driver needs to pay attention and not make assumption whcih waythe cuylcist is going.

re: fat arse - ooh a bit touchy there - sorry, no offense

I've had too many bad experinces with drivers whilst on a bike so any topic like this is gonna make me go off on one.

---

02GF74 - 14/11/09 at 01:07 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by philw
I would have thought there will be a lot of dodgey insurance claims occuring.

---

You'd kind of think so but is there any evidence of this from where this scheme operates?

Unless you are a practised stunt rider, smacking yourself hard into a car in order to write off a bike runs the risks of killing or permanently injuring yourself - I doubt there are that many claims and surely you'd be found out if you did it on a regular basis?

---

rusty nuts - 14/11/09 at 01:13 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by 02GF74

quote:

---

Originally posted by Humbug
cyclists have to understand that the rules of the road apply to them too: stop at red lights, don't go up one way streets the wrong way, signal before and while manoeuvring, etc.

---

what is the big issue with stopping at red traffic light?

if the road is clear, then give me a reason why you cannot cycle, or indeed drive across it.

I commute on bike - fortunately can do most of it away from cars - and from experience I know for a fact that the further I am away from a car, the safer I am. That is the situation crossing a junction on ared traffice when there is no traffic coming form eiher. You won;tbe able to convince me otherwise.

And don;t hey have turn right on LED in US? Same thing but instead of goiung straighyt across you err, like, turn right. Obvoulsy comon sense and observation means you do not do that when there is traffic about to smack into you.

signal before manouevring? yeah, rigyt os what aboutr cars? There have been too many occasious I am at corssing and vehicl on my riught will cut across my path, at times deliverately knowing that as a cyclist I will have to give way iunless I want to be injured.

A cuclist not giving signlas makes it safer for them since the driver needs to pay attention and not make assumption whcih waythe cuylcist is going.

re: fat arse - ooh a bit touchy there - sorry, no offense

I've had too many bad experinces with drivers whilst on a bike so any topic like this is gonna make me go off on one.

---

A typical blinkered response from an idiot cyclist.!

[Edited on 14/11/09 by rusty nuts]

---

Steve G - 14/11/09 at 01:20 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by 02GF74
if the road is clear, then give me a reason why you cannot cycle, or indeed drive across it.

---

here's one - because its the law!!! I'm a cyclist too by the way and really dont understand the logic behind your thinking there. You really think not signalling or obeying an of the rules of the road is a good thing to do?? Personally i think the police should actively prosecute cyclists who think the laws dont apply to them - and repeat offenders should have their bike confiscated for their own and other road users safety. Yes car drivers could and should be more considerate around cyclists....... but its not likely to happen when car drivers continually see cyclists being a law unto themselves.

---

rf900rush - 14/11/09 at 01:24 PM

It's a scam.

Elections coming.
Need some distractions from the real issues.

---

bj928 - 14/11/09 at 01:25 PM

quote:

---

Ditto - although something that wouldn't need investment but I believe would make a significant difference to road safety would be if lorries were immobilised and forced to park off-road during certain hours...e.g. 6am - 10am, 3pm - 8pm

---

here is someone thats never been in a truck or understands them, trucks have so many restictions all ready, if you add this to the equation you'll have empty bloody shops, then you'll have something else to complain about, as a truck driver i would prefer to deliver in cities overnight, but because of lorry bans, shops being shut over night and other things we are not able to, car drivers seem to think trucks can fit in gaps that cars can, that they can stop as quick as a car, car drivers should go in a truck some time and see its not as easy as you think.

also if a bike rider doesn't want to get run over, why do they cycle on duel carrage ways when there is a cycle lane 6ft to there right, i used to come out of london on the A4, lovely cycle way most the way from where the m4 elevated starts, all they way out to heathrow, must have cost millions to put it there, and the cyclists still want to ride on the dual carrage way and risk getting run over by my truck, and getting in car drivers way, if they want respect get on your own cycle ways and stay out the way of the cars your worried about, then the cars won't or are less likely to hit you, doesn't take much of a brain cell to work out!!!

---

02GF74 - 14/11/09 at 01:31 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G

quote:

---

Originally posted by 02GF74
if the road is clear, then give me a reason why you cannot cycle, or indeed drive across it.

---

here's one - because its the law!!! I'm a cyclist too by the way and really dont understand the logic behind your thinking there. You really think not signalling or obeying an of the rules of the road is a good thing to do?? Personally i think the police should actively prosecute cyclists who think the laws dont apply to them - and repeat offenders should have their bike confiscated for their own and other road users safety. Yes car drivers could and should be more considerate around cyclists....... but its not likely to happen when car drivers continually see cyclists being a law unto themselves.

---

let he has not not speeded - yes, driving over the speed limits is also breaking the law, let him cast the first stone.

maybe the law should confiscate the cars of speeding motorists, how would you like that?

---

BenB - 14/11/09 at 01:37 PM

All I'm saying is the next time a neoprene clad roadwarrier decides to try and run me over when I've got the right of way on the pedestrian crossing I'm buying a tazer to equal the playing field a bit. I've seen what happens when 10 stone of sweaty cyclist + a load of tig welded aliminium tube collides with a pedestrian and it's not the cyclist who comes off worst...

I think unfortunately because some cyclists think they're doing the world a favour by not burning fossil fuels it means they can be generally antisocial by cycling down through pedestrian-only zones, mow people down on zebra crossings, ride on the pavement, under-cut busses (thereby running over anyone trying to get off the bus) etc etc.

When I'm a driver I'm curteous to cyclists, when (as I usually am) a pedestrian I get mighty pissed off by them. Annoyingly the little gits go faster than I can run so I can't even run after them and push them off. I have been tempted to do an Indiana Jones stick-something-in-the-front-spokes type trick when I've been carrying an umbrella but my reactions aren't quick enough (and it's a nice umbrella). I think it's tazer time

After all if we're going to get all hollier-than-thou on the environmental front pedestrians should get priority over cyclists. All that Tig welding for those ali tubes and how much carbon does it take to produce a neoprene fluorescent gimp suit?

---

Steve G - 14/11/09 at 01:42 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by 02GF74

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G

quote:

---

Originally posted by 02GF74
if the road is clear, then give me a reason why you cannot cycle, or indeed drive across it.

---

here's one - because its the law!!! I'm a cyclist too by the way and really dont understand the logic behind your thinking there. You really think not signalling or obeying an of the rules of the road is a good thing to do?? Personally i think the police should actively prosecute cyclists who think the laws dont apply to them - and repeat offenders should have their bike confiscated for their own and other road users safety. Yes car drivers could and should be more considerate around cyclists....... but its not likely to happen when car drivers continually see cyclists being a law unto themselves.

---

let he has not not speeded - yes, driving over the speed limits is also breaking the law, let him cast the first stone.

maybe the law should confiscate the cars of speeding motorists, how would you like that?

---

Do it 4 times in 3 years and thats 12 points - ie a ban. Drive without insurance and the cops can confiscate your car immediately.......... so the legislation is already in place for car drivers!!!!

[Edited on 14/11/09 by Steve G]

---

Theshed - 14/11/09 at 02:08 PM

This is an old story - it relates to the 5th EU Motor insurance directive - The UK was obliged to make this law in 2007 (as far as i can quickly find out). That directive makes countries ensure that pedestrians and cyclists CAN claim off a motorists insurance. As drafted it adds nothing to the law in the UK i.e. there is no presumption of fault.

For the very bored here is the relevant text.

Injuries and damage to property suffered by
pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised users of the road, who are usually the weakest party in an accident, should be covered by the compulsory insurance of the vehicle involved in the accident where they are entitled to compensation under national civil law. This provision does not prejudge the civil liability or the level of awards for damages in a specific accident, under national legislation.

For the record:

(1) My arse is not fat
(2) I cycle and drive
(3) I have been seriously knocked off 4 times - it hurts. I have never been hurt driving a car.

Isn't the trick to be considerate to others?

---

Ivan - 14/11/09 at 02:56 PM

What I don't understand is that cyclists clip their feet into the pedals and hence can't stop easily - that's largely why they don't want to stop at traffic lights etc, or if they have no option but to stop then lean against the nearest car. Surely the pedal clips should be banned from normal road use and only be allowed for competition purposes.

I'm sure pedal clips have contributed to more low speed accidents than have ever saved.

And yes - I am not a cyclist.

---

Steve G - 14/11/09 at 03:04 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ivan
What I don't understand is that cyclists clip their feet into the pedals and hence can't stop easily - that's largely why they don't want to stop at traffic lights etc, or if they have no option but to stop then lean against the nearest car. Surely the pedal clips should be banned from normal road use and only be allowed for competition purposes.

I'm sure pedal clips have contributed to more low speed accidents than have ever saved.

And yes - I am not a cyclist.

---

LOL i can tell you arent. Clipless pedals are very easy to use and have never caused me a problem getting out of them in a hurry so nobody imho can use them as an excuse to not stop. Toe straps are way harder to get out of in my experience from "the olden days" before clipless pedals.

---

Ivan - 14/11/09 at 03:11 PM

^^^

So why don't cyclists want to stop at a traffic light, and why do they go to rediculous lengths to balance in place or lean against cars when they have to stop??

---

rusty nuts - 14/11/09 at 03:14 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ivan
^^^

So why don't cyclists want to stop at a traffic light, and why do they go to rediculous lengths to balance in place or lean against cars when they have to stop??

---

Because if they had travelled by car they wouldn't be running late and have to take stupid risks!

---

Steve G - 14/11/09 at 03:16 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ivan
^^^

So why don't cyclists want to stop at a traffic light, and why do they go to rediculous lengths to balance in place or lean against cars when they have to stop??

---

because some are lazy inconsiderate idiots who think the law doesnt apply to them (plus it takes more energy to stop and start all the time - but still no excuse to run a light)

---

liam.mccaffrey - 14/11/09 at 03:25 PM

all road users should have liability insurance, then let the insurance companies sort it out.

People who use the road for transport or leisure should be covered, no group of road users should be exempt from the laws which cover motorised vehicles.

Their vehicle, whatever it is, should be proven fit for purpose(MOT). Their insurance should be valid, and most importantly they are competent!!!!

If you had never been to this planet before and had to risk assess allowing a cyclist to share the road with motorised vehicles, fitness for purpose and competency are the first things on the control measure list.

[Edited on 14/11/09 by liam.mccaffrey]

---

Staple balls - 14/11/09 at 03:27 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G
LOL i can tell you arent. Clipless pedals are very easy to use and have never caused me a problem getting out of them in a hurry so nobody imho can use them as an excuse to not stop. Toe straps are way harder to get out of in my experience from "the olden days" before clipless pedals.

---

Not to mention for anyone who rides relatively often a trackstand isn't really an issue, so no reason not to stop at lights etc.

However, IME, lights are one of the most dangerous places for a cyclist, you tend to not get noticed unless you park your arse in the middle of the road, then people generally try to get past you as soon as they can. So your safest choices are jump the lights, and cross in various illegal manners (usually pedestrian crossings) or get off and cross on foot, which is technically legal, but pointless (if you're on a bike at a pedestrian crossing, you're only moving at walking speed anyway)

Probably worth mentioning here I've been hit properly 4 times, 3 times were "smidsy"s, fortunately I got away with only minor damage to myself every time, the bike was another matter. (as were the cars, 19st of biker over a bmw does a remarkable amount of damage)

Once was partly my fault, I crossed legally and properly for a sideroad in a bad position (just past the crest of a hill), back of my bike got hit.

Basically (I'm sure i've said it before) bikers have no protection at all apart from an occasional helmet, usually a badly fitting one. IME they ride in legally iffy ways that mostly work to keep them safe.

As far as this stuff goes, assume that most cyclists are pretty situationally aware (else they'd be dead) and apply some judgement to what they do.

Sure, there are utter pricks who ride through pedestrian areas at busy times, there's no need for it, there's also people who shouldn't be on the road at all, whether it be a bike or a car. Personally, I'd rather take my chances against an idiot on a bike, than one with 50hp and 3 feet of steel to protect them.

---

Ivan - 14/11/09 at 05:11 PM

Slightly off topic - Confession time - sitting at red traffic light in my Cobra - no one else around except cyclist coming up on my left, as he gets to mid car light turns green, I put welly in, tyres scream, bit of smoke (actually quiet a lot ) and cyclist swerves left, must have given him one hell of a fright check mirror he seems ok except for stiff finger in the air - still feel guilty - promise I won't do it again when there's a cyclist near me but no bets when I am at light with no other traffic around.

---

02GF74 - 14/11/09 at 05:17 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Staple balls

However, IME, lights are one of the most dangerous places for a cyclist, you tend to not get noticed unless you park your arse in the middle of the road, then people generally try to get past you as soon as they can. So your safest choices are jump the lights, and cross in various illegal manners.

---

exactly, you seem the only one who seems to understand my reasoning.

can't see what problem drivers have with RLJ other than they cannot do it (actually they do but that isd another thread) - what really gets their goat is that cyclists are able to mkae better progress than them, especailly in stationary traffic.

---

Brommers - 14/11/09 at 05:38 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by mad_dogpompey
be a bit of a bad thing for those of you who live in places like cambridge london and oxford!!!!!

---

It would be if it was true. Which it isn't.

It would be nice if people would check their facts before starting such scare-mongering. And no, the Daily Mail/Express/Star/Sun/Mirror don't count as reliable sources of information...

[Edited on 14/11/09 by Brommers]

---

Steve G - 14/11/09 at 06:09 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by 02GF74
exactly, you seem the only one who seems to understand my reasoning.

---

Personally i'm glad the laws of the land over-ride your reasoning!!!

---

Johneturbo - 14/11/09 at 07:06 PM

Would these guys be also excempt from claims!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g&feature=player_embedded

3:15 is a classic



[Edited on 14/11/09 by Johneturbo]

---

Staple balls - 14/11/09 at 07:12 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G

quote:

---

Originally posted by 02GF74
exactly, you seem the only one who seems to understand my reasoning.

---

Personally i'm glad the laws of the land over-ride your reasoning!!!

---

I've tried cycling by the laws of the land, it'd work fine if it wasn't for every other t**t on the road.

"Accidents" I've had when cycling:

1) Crossroads with lights on all sides, waited for green, started heading forwards. Woman in BMW, went straight over lights and into me. sky-ground-sky-ground. windscreen, roof. Fuckloads of pain, £1200 of bike trashed. "Sorry, I wasn't paying attention"

2) Traffic lights with turn off to the side, stay on left side of road, wait for lights, ride away safely 2 cars pass, white van clips my handlebars, dumps me into kerb/wall, minor damage to bike, walk to A+E to get knees patched up. (bloke didn't even stop)

3) Bog standard traffic calming lights on a main road, know better than to stick to the left as the road's poorly maintained, so park my arse in the middle of the road ahead of the traffic (where I have every right to be) tosser tries to nudge me forwards when the lights change, then swerves past as close as he can, left me with a choice of moving car or parked car. I took the parked car and the broken fingers.

So yeah, I gave up on the law of the land and happily pay the occasional £30 fine here and there in exchange for my survival.

Personally, I see this as no different to the "spirited" driving that a great deal of people here partake in. It's a considered risk by someone who knows their vehicle and their limits.

---

roadrunner - 14/11/09 at 08:09 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Staple balls

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G

quote:

---

Originally posted by 02GF74
exactly, you seem the only one who seems to understand my reasoning.

---

Personally i'm glad the laws of the land over-ride your reasoning!!!

---

I've tried cycling by the laws of the land, it'd work fine if it wasn't for every other t**t on the road.

"Accidents" I've had when cycling:

1) Crossroads with lights on all sides, waited for green, started heading forwards. Woman in BMW, went straight over lights and into me. sky-ground-sky-ground. windscreen, roof. Fuckloads of pain, £1200 of bike trashed. "Sorry, I wasn't paying attention"

2) Traffic lights with turn off to the side, stay on left side of road, wait for lights, ride away safely 2 cars pass, white van clips my handlebars, dumps me into kerb/wall, minor damage to bike, walk to A+E to get knees patched up. (bloke didn't even stop)

3) Bog standard traffic calming lights on a main road, know better than to stick to the left as the road's poorly maintained, so park my arse in the middle of the road ahead of the traffic (where I have every right to be) tosser tries to nudge me forwards when the lights change, then swerves past as close as he can, left me with a choice of moving car or parked car. I took the parked car and the broken fingers.

So yeah, I gave up on the law of the land and happily pay the occasional £30 fine here and there in exchange for my survival.

Personally, I see this as no different to the "spirited" driving that a great deal of people here partake in. It's a considered risk by someone who knows their vehicle and their limits.

---

Same here mate. I am a serious petrol head and i am also super fit, running and cycling.
Before this year i spent three years cycling to work, in that time i had two major accidents , neither where my fault, also i would have at least two or three near misses every week by W****R drivers who gave me no respect what so ever and if i caught them they got what for every time. But i rode my bike in the correct manor obeying every traffic light and crossing and where did it get me, so if you dont mind, i suggest if drivers have a problem with my styles they can just go and F**K THEMSELVES, i could'nt give a poo what they think because at the end of the day i look after number one and they are the pussys rapt up in tin tops, they do not feel the pain when they F**K up.
In life it takes all sorts.

---

40inches - 15/11/09 at 12:20 PM

So, if I've got this right, the pro cyclist camp are saying that the rules of the road should not apply to them??? i:e they ignore red lights, cross over, get hit by a car legally crossing on green and then sue the car driver
I cycle a lot, but for "pleasure", because I'm an old git and need the exercise and walking bores the tits off me, so I tend to agree with a lot of the statements made regarding safety, I try to use cycle tracks wherever possible or if the pavement is wide enough use them.
A lot of car drivers seem to think that they have exclusive rights to the use of the roads, pretty much in the same way that fishermen seem to think that they own canal tow paths (don't get me started on that) and a lot of cyclists think that they are immortal.
It's really down to lack of consideration to other people, on both sides, and life in general, don't get me started on that topic either!

---

Steve G - 15/11/09 at 12:28 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by 40inches
So, if I've got this right, the pro cyclist camp are saying that the rules of the road should not apply to them??? i:e they ignore red lights, cross over, get hit by a car legally crossing on green and then sue the car driver

---

You got it in one by my understanding too. I'd be interested in their views on how they'd feel if they went through a green light in their car and took out a cyclist who thought he was immortal / too important to obey the red light. Would they mind coughing up the insurance excess / 5 years worth of increased insurance premiums - plus the feelings they'd have for life if the cyclist was killed??

---

Marcus - 15/11/09 at 12:37 PM

I cycle to work every day (have done for 3 years now) and had no accidents (yet!). I wear a helmet and am lit up like a christmas tree when it's dark. BUT I do occasionally run a red light. I make a point of obeying those at junctions or roundabouts, but pedestrian crossings I tend to ignore as long as there are no pedestrians on them! It gives me a headstart to the next junction. I clip into my pedals and find it very simple to clip out at junctions, so leaning on cars is a definite nono (if someone leant on my car they would get a proper earful!!)
In essence you should cycle as you would drive (apart from the pedestrian crossing thing) being courteous to other road users, and treating every other road user as if they were morons, expecting the unexpected!
BTW there are cycle paths pretty much all the way to work and I don't use them. They are ill thought out and having to stop at every side road really annoys me! There are signs saying cyclists dismount at the 2 roundabouts I use too....waste of time IMO, as long as you are sensible and don't lane chop it's not usually an issue.

---

Staple balls - 15/11/09 at 01:48 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G
... and took out a cyclist who thought he was immortal / too important to obey the red light. Would they mind coughing up the insurance excess / 5 years worth of increased insurance premiums - plus the feelings they'd have for life if the cyclist was killed??

---

You're assuming that cyclists aren't actually aware of their surroundings, are idiots, or actually want to die, This isn't the case (mostly).

Sure, we jump lights where it's safer to do so, but just as often you're better off waiting at the lights, so we do.

However, as I pointed out above, safety wise, obeying the laws of the road doesn't mean a thing, there's still thousands of idiots out there who'll try to kill you nomatter what laws you obey.

It's for those people's mental health (as you pointed out) that cyclists jump lights, saving poor innocent drivers the trauma of murdering someone because they were too busy playing with the radio.

[Edited on 15/11/09 by Staple balls]

[Edited on 15/11/09 by Staple balls]

---

Steve G - 15/11/09 at 01:59 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Staple balls

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G
... and took out a cyclist who thought he was immortal / too important to obey the red light. Would they mind coughing up the insurance excess / 5 years worth of increased insurance premiums - plus the feelings they'd have for life if the cyclist was killed??

---

You're assuming that cyclists aren't actually aware of their surroundings, are idiots, or actually want to die, This isn't the case (mostly).

---

I am a cyclist (ex Cat 2 road racer) and very aware of my surroundings when out so am not an anti-cycling activist who thinks roads belong to cars. I'm also aware that people make mistakes / misjudgements (cyclists, pedestrians and drivers). The original post was about car drivers will become automatically liable for all accidents and if its true then yet again its the car driver who will have to pay up regardless of who is at fault.

Yes accidents happen and that is what insurance is for - but to me if a cyclist ignores a light or for whatever reason causes an collision through their own negligence then why should it be the car driver who has to pay a potentially large financial penalty?? If the car driver causes a crash through provable negligence then they end up in court. The same should apply to cyclists in my eyes.

Edited to change "accident" to "collision" as accidents suggest no intention rather than causing something through negligence.

[Edited on 15/11/09 by Steve G]

---

roadrunner - 16/11/09 at 08:10 AM

The problem with this thread is that all cyclists have been categorised as "idiot cyclists" and most people on this site are good drivers and that should come out in there riding style.
This isn't about thinking we are above the law, it's about self preservation.
When you cycle regularly enough you come to appreciate where its safe to be with regards other road users. My last accident was at a T junction, i was going to be turning right so moved to the right of my lane, but a Picasso was turning right as well coming towards me , he cut the junction off and o went through his windscreen.
Now i approach the same junction to turn right but i keep to the left but now i have the problem of drivers passing me turning left when i turn right.
I think all people in a one and half ton vehicles need to remember that if we the cyclist make a mistake it doesn't hurt the driver does it.

---

JoelP - 23/11/09 at 09:00 PM

i have to say, if i were on a bike i wouldnt dream of stopping for lights.

---