Simon
|
| posted on 5/2/11 at 12:54 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by owelly
This is what we need. NSFW!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8
Can't argue with quality like that
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 5/2/11 at 07:03 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
I ride bike, ex motorcyclist (IAM Advanced, RoSPA Advanced and Instructor for about 12 years) and drive cars so believe I have a fairly balanced
view.
I believe that you do not have a balanced view at all, or maybe you haven't understood the scenario I laid out. There is no possible way at all
that anybody but the cyclist could possibly be to blame in the incident described.
At the time that the turning driver started his manouvre the cyclist could well have been 8 or 9 cars back, and therefore completely invisible to that
driver. If things were as you describe no-one would ever be able to turn right off a main road ever, for fear that an invisible cyclist would suddenly
ram him as he completes his turn.
Your list of qualifications to talk on this subject are not relevant, all you need is common sense.
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 5/2/11 at 07:26 AM |
|
|
This is the type of behaviour I see a lot in London
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H95pnjNVU8&NR=1
|
|
|
roadrunner
|
| posted on 5/2/11 at 01:52 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
This is the type of behaviour I see a lot in London
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H95pnjNVU8&NR=1
But did you notice the camera man.
|
|
|
jacko
|
| posted on 5/2/11 at 04:40 PM |
|
|
And thats why all our buses have cameras at the front both sides and back you should see some of the film o my god
Best thing is NOT to use a bike on the road
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 5/2/11 at 05:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by owelly
I may as well chip in with my tuppence worth....
For a kick off, don't quote the highway code as law. It isn't. Ignoring the advise in the highway code may also be comitting an offence
under the Road Traffic Act but not always. The quote about overtaking is a very good example. If you are travelling at 30mph in a 30mph limit, the
highway code 'advises' you to slow down to let someone who is attempting an overtake, to do so safely. There is nothing in the Road
Traffic Act that states such. However, if you were travelling at 20mph and then you sped up to 30mph when someone was trying to overtake, then you are
committing an offence, possibly more than one offence.
Secondly, having spent most of my youth on motorbikes, I learnt to ride as if every other road user was out to kill me. OK, so perhaps I do have the
right of way, my light has gone green, etc. Great. I'll think about that as I'm getting some grumpy, hairy, male nurse, wiping my arse and
bringing me cups of tepid weak tea. Right is right but sometimes it's better to concede, use your noggin, let the BMW X5 jump his red light and
stay safe.
If cyclists would just accept the inevitable, that other road users don't see them or can't be bothered to give them room or whatever,
then it's up to them to drive accordingly. Those camera clips are a very good example. It's pretty obvious most of the time what is going
to happen so instead of getting all high and mighty, just roll with it (not literally) and get home safe. After all, as we have all agreed, in a
collision between a tin box and a soft fleshy organic person, the person will come off worse.
As for taxing cycles? I tax my motorbikes. I taxed my moped. What's the difference? Pedally bikes use the roads. Admittedly they should get a
rebate because they don't seem to use the traffic lights and other road signs but they make up for that by using the pavements.
This is what we need. NSFW!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8
Woohoo
The Rubberbandits have the answer.
|
|
|
Snuggs
|
| posted on 5/2/11 at 05:17 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by roadrunner
Just another thought for all you non cyclists. If a cyclist is travelling the wrong way down a road onto on coming traffic, what is the correct
procedure as a driver you should take. Think about it, the cyclist will always have the right of way in any circumstance, the driver in his killing
machine will have non.
So what you're saying is that cyclists can break the law and STILL have right of way.
Yeah, right !!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.topcashback.co.uk/ref/snuggstcb
Spider pig, spider pig, does whatever a spider pig does.
I doubt therefore I may be.
Luposlipophobia : Fear of being chased by wolves around a freshly waxed kitchen floor, while wearing only socks on your feet.
My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely!
http://www.venganza.org
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
http://www.snuggs.co.uk
|
|
|
PhilCross66
|
| posted on 5/2/11 at 06:00 PM |
|
|
So Snuggs how do you think you will do in court when you are explaining to a judge that you had right of way over the oncoming cyclist so you
didn't try to stop or avoid him and just ran him over and killed him ?
|
|
|
Snuggs
|
| posted on 5/2/11 at 06:33 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhilCross66
So Snuggs how do you think you will do in court when you are explaining to a judge that you had right of way over the oncoming cyclist so you
didn't try to stop or avoid him and just ran him over and killed him ?
Would you deliberately run in to a car that had pulled out in front of you just because you had right of way ?
I would always try to avoid a collision whether I had right of way or not, but I refuse to take responsibility for an unavoidable collision that was
caused by someone who is breaking the law or acting in a stupid or reckless manner.
[Edited on 5/2/11 by Snuggs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.topcashback.co.uk/ref/snuggstcb
Spider pig, spider pig, does whatever a spider pig does.
I doubt therefore I may be.
Luposlipophobia : Fear of being chased by wolves around a freshly waxed kitchen floor, while wearing only socks on your feet.
My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely!
http://www.venganza.org
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
http://www.snuggs.co.uk
|
|
|
roadrunner
|
| posted on 5/2/11 at 08:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snuggs
quote:
Originally posted by PhilCross66
So Snuggs how do you think you will do in court when you are explaining to a judge that you had right of way over the oncoming cyclist so you
didn't try to stop or avoid him and just ran him over and killed him ?
Would you deliberately run in to a car that had pulled out in front of you just because you had right of way ?
I would always try to avoid a collision whether I had right of way or not, but I refuse to take responsibility for an unavoidable collision that was
caused by someone who is breaking the law or acting in a stupid or reckless manner.
[Edited on 5/2/11 by Snuggs]
Have you ever been involved in an accident Snuggs, I have 3 times, once in my car and twice on a bike, non of witch where my fault. I always thought
that I could avoid anything that came at me, how wrong I was. 
When I talk about someone going the wrong way down a road on a bike, its not meant to be real, its just hypothetical. If a woman crossed the road in
front of you while pushing a pram, you wouldn't hit here just because you had the right of way.
|
|
|
Snuggs
|
| posted on 5/2/11 at 08:45 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by roadrunner
quote:
Originally posted by Snuggs
quote:
Originally posted by PhilCross66
So Snuggs how do you think you will do in court when you are explaining to a judge that you had right of way over the oncoming cyclist so you
didn't try to stop or avoid him and just ran him over and killed him ?
Would you deliberately run in to a car that had pulled out in front of you just because you had right of way ?
I would always try to avoid a collision whether I had right of way or not, but I refuse to take responsibility for an unavoidable collision that was
caused by someone who is breaking the law or acting in a stupid or reckless manner.
[Edited on 5/2/11 by Snuggs]
Have you ever been involved in an accident Snuggs, I have 3 times, once in my car and twice on a bike, non of witch where my fault. I always thought
that I could avoid anything that came at me, how wrong I was.
When I talk about someone going the wrong way down a road on a bike, its not meant to be real, its just hypothetical. If a woman crossed the road in
front of you while pushing a pram, you wouldn't hit here just because you had the right of way.
Have I said anywhere that I would deliberately cause a collision because I had right of way.
Some collisions are UNAVOIDABLE but someone is ALWAYS to blame.
Cyclists and pedestrians may have right of way over motorised vehicles but as I said earlier I will not be held responsible if anyone causes an
UNAVOIDABLE collision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.topcashback.co.uk/ref/snuggstcb
Spider pig, spider pig, does whatever a spider pig does.
I doubt therefore I may be.
Luposlipophobia : Fear of being chased by wolves around a freshly waxed kitchen floor, while wearing only socks on your feet.
My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely!
http://www.venganza.org
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
http://www.snuggs.co.uk
|
|
|
dmac
|
| posted on 5/2/11 at 11:48 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
At the time that the turning driver started his manouvre the cyclist could well have been 8 or 9 cars back, and therefore completely invisible to that
driver. If things were as you describe no-one would ever be able to turn right off a main road ever, for fear that an invisible cyclist would suddenly
ram him as he completes his turn.
Stop digging, you're only making it worse, if the driver could not see that it was safe to make the manoeuvre then he should wait until he can
see that it is safe (the accident proves that it wasn't safe). If you are crossing a queue of traffic through a gap that someone has left you
cannot assume that there is no filtering traffic because filtering is a legal manoeuvre.
We all know that people make unsafe manoeuvres all the time and get away with it, this seems to make them think that it is not their fault when they
do not get away with it.
Duncan
|
|
|
MakeEverything
|
| posted on 6/2/11 at 12:45 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
I can't defend jumping red lights - but it's not going to kill anyone 
Tell me youre joking?
I saw a cyclist get run over by a skip lorry (he actually went pop as the rear wheels wend over his head) because he jumped the lights at speed and
couldnt stop. They are also a distraction to the "Right of way" as they ride into the junction, beyond the stop lines.
Ever been hit by a cyclist jumping the lights at 20-30 mph? I have (on a zebra crossing in the scenario below) it hurts. Ever had a cyclist damage
your car and then just ride off as though its normal? I have, causing nearly £300 in damage which i had to pay for as a result of handlebars and
brake levers hitting the side of the car where he lost his balance trying to squeeze his way through.
In London, they also filter through the traffic and often cant see the crossings, so when youre on the crossing and the bus has stopped, behind it
lurks a twat like the one in the video shooting between the traffic, jumping the crossings and red lights.
I dont have anything at all against cyclists (In fact i sympathise with them to a point), but i did a cycling proficiency test at school some years
back, which taught me some fundamental road safety skills and some elements of the highway code that dont seem to exist in some cyclists. Obviously
motoring (Car and Bike) has extended that somewhat now, and theres no way id ride a motorbike (or bicycle for that matter) the way some of these
idiots do. - I stress at this point, that there are sensible cyclists that ive encountered as well.
I think the Road Tax point made above is for cycles to be taxed as road users, much like cars. I have three vehicles in our family, all individually
taxed (as it is illegal to transfer between vehicles), insured and roadworthy (though the kit is in bits....) so why wouldn't i have to
contribute if i used a cycle on the road.
Kindest Regards,
Richard.
...You can make it foolProof, but youll never make it Idiot Proof!...
|
|
|
MakeEverything
|
| posted on 6/2/11 at 12:48 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snuggs
Cyclists and pedestrians may have right of way over motorised vehicles but as I said earlier I will not be held responsible if anyone causes an
UNAVOIDABLE collision.
Not strictly true. Cyclists are banned from some roads (Motorways or pedestrianised areas), and pedestrians do not have right of way in the middle of
every road.
Kindest Regards,
Richard.
...You can make it foolProof, but youll never make it Idiot Proof!...
|
|
|
MakeEverything
|
| posted on 6/2/11 at 12:56 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by T66
The flashing of headlights is a big no no , it implies the road is safe/clear when in fact it may not be.
What it actually implies, is that you are making other road users aware of your presence. Nothing else.
Kindest Regards,
Richard.
...You can make it foolProof, but youll never make it Idiot Proof!...
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 6/2/11 at 07:08 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dmac
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
At the time that the turning driver started his manouvre the cyclist could well have been 8 or 9 cars back, and therefore completely invisible to that
driver. If things were as you describe no-one would ever be able to turn right off a main road ever, for fear that an invisible cyclist would suddenly
ram him as he completes his turn.
Stop digging, you're only making it worse, if the driver could not see that it was safe to make the manoeuvre then he should wait until he can
see that it is safe (the accident proves that it wasn't safe). If you are crossing a queue of traffic through a gap that someone has left you
cannot assume that there is no filtering traffic because filtering is a legal manoeuvre.
We all know that people make unsafe manoeuvres all the time and get away with it, this seems to make them think that it is not their fault when they
do not get away with it.
Duncan
I really don't understand how you can ignore the facts of the case I set out. You must be one of those "cyclist is always right"
types. One of the things you are ignoring here is the fact that the cyclist wasn't looking where he was going. There's an offence right
there. What if it had been a woman and pushchair that he had hit? Whose fault would it have been then? Try applying some simple logic and read through
the case I laid out again, and see if you can't start to get it.
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
Snuggs
|
| posted on 6/2/11 at 11:02 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dmac
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
At the time that the turning driver started his manouvre the cyclist could well have been 8 or 9 cars back, and therefore completely invisible to that
driver. If things were as you describe no-one would ever be able to turn right off a main road ever, for fear that an invisible cyclist would suddenly
ram him as he completes his turn.
Stop digging, you're only making it worse, if the driver could not see that it was safe to make the manoeuvre then he should wait until he can
see that it is safe (the accident proves that it wasn't safe). If you are crossing a queue of traffic through a gap that someone has left you
cannot assume that there is no filtering traffic because filtering is a legal manoeuvre.
Duncan
Filtering is only a legal manoeuvre IF there is a filter/cycle/bus lane.
Undertaking is allowed if the traffic in the NEXT lane is moving slower than you are. NOT TRAFFIC IN THE SAME LANE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.topcashback.co.uk/ref/snuggstcb
Spider pig, spider pig, does whatever a spider pig does.
I doubt therefore I may be.
Luposlipophobia : Fear of being chased by wolves around a freshly waxed kitchen floor, while wearing only socks on your feet.
My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely!
http://www.venganza.org
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
http://www.snuggs.co.uk
|
|
|
dmac
|
| posted on 6/2/11 at 07:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
quote:
Originally posted by dmac
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
At the time that the turning driver started his manouvre the cyclist could well have been 8 or 9 cars back, and therefore completely invisible to that
driver. If things were as you describe no-one would ever be able to turn right off a main road ever, for fear that an invisible cyclist would suddenly
ram him as he completes his turn.
Stop digging, you're only making it worse, if the driver could not see that it was safe to make the manoeuvre then he should wait until he can
see that it is safe (the accident proves that it wasn't safe). If you are crossing a queue of traffic through a gap that someone has left you
cannot assume that there is no filtering traffic because filtering is a legal manoeuvre.
We all know that people make unsafe manoeuvres all the time and get away with it, this seems to make them think that it is not their fault when they
do not get away with it.
Duncan
I really don't understand how you can ignore the facts of the case I set out. You must be one of those "cyclist is always right"
types. One of the things you are ignoring here is the fact that the cyclist wasn't looking where he was going. There's an offence right
there. What if it had been a woman and pushchair that he had hit? Whose fault would it have been then? Try applying some simple logic and read through
the case I laid out again, and see if you can't start to get it.
I agree that cyclists are often in the wrong but I have far more sympathy for them as they come off so much worse in any collision, however in your
original case the car driver turned across the path of a moving vehicle that he could not see* and so he is in the wrong. You have assumed a few
things about the cyclist that you could not possibly know as you only read about the accident and you are building your case around these assumptions
rather than the facts that you have posted.
* I have assumed that the car driver could not see the cyclist but if he could see him then it makes his case even worse.
in your second case it sounds like the woman is in the wrong, what would your opinion be if she pushed her baby out right in front of your car and you
couldn't stop in time?
Duncan
|
|
|
roadrunner
|
| posted on 6/2/11 at 07:37 PM |
|
|
This is going to the longest argument yet.
The popcorn has long gone.
|
|
|
dmac
|
| posted on 6/2/11 at 07:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snuggs
quote:
Originally posted by dmac
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
At the time that the turning driver started his manouvre the cyclist could well have been 8 or 9 cars back, and therefore completely invisible to that
driver. If things were as you describe no-one would ever be able to turn right off a main road ever, for fear that an invisible cyclist would suddenly
ram him as he completes his turn.
Stop digging, you're only making it worse, if the driver could not see that it was safe to make the manoeuvre then he should wait until he can
see that it is safe (the accident proves that it wasn't safe). If you are crossing a queue of traffic through a gap that someone has left you
cannot assume that there is no filtering traffic because filtering is a legal manoeuvre.
Duncan
Filtering is only a legal manoeuvre IF there is a filter/cycle/bus lane.
Undertaking is allowed if the traffic in the NEXT lane is moving slower than you are. NOT TRAFFIC IN THE SAME LANE
Filtering for motorcyclists is covered by rule 88 of the highway code but there is no mention of it for cyclists, however since it is not listed in
the "you must not" section it must be considered allowable.
Duncan
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 6/2/11 at 07:44 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dmac
I agree that cyclists are often in the wrong but I have far more sympathy for them as they come off so much worse in any collision, however in your
original case the car driver turned across the path of a moving vehicle that he could not see* and so he is in the wrong. You have assumed a few
things about the cyclist that you could not possibly know as you only read about the accident and you are building your case around these assumptions
rather than the facts that you have posted.
* I have assumed that the car driver could not see the cyclist but if he could see him then it makes his case even worse.
in your second case it sounds like the woman is in the wrong, what would your opinion be if she pushed her baby out right in front of your car and you
couldn't stop in time?
Duncan
The fact that cyclists 'usually' come off worse just makes this particular idiot's actions even more idiotic. The FACT that he
struck the vehicle, near its rear, hard enough to end up going over the top PROVES that he was a) not looking where he was going or b) not riding
within a speed at which he could stop in the amount of road that he could see to be clear.
The very idea that cyclists should be allowed to dominate the city streets like this is ridiculous. Nobody ever allowed to turn right just in case a
lunatic cyclist shouls suddenly shoot out from behind a series of slowed/stopped cars and plough full pelt across a junction without a care in the
world is 'not sensible' and 'not reasonable'.
If I was a judge and the driver of the car came up in front of me that would be a resounding not guilty, in fact I would throw the case out without a
hearing.
As for the hapless woman with the pushchair, a lot would depnd on WHY I couldn't stop. In a case like the one described, on a bike steaming up
the inside of stopped cars, in the same lane as them, woman crossing from the other side, I would hope that it would be a custodial sentence.
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
dmac
|
| posted on 6/2/11 at 07:46 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by roadrunner
This is going to the longest argument yet.
The popcorn has long gone.
You can go to the shop for some more, we'll still be at it when you get back 
Duncan
|
|
|
dmac
|
| posted on 6/2/11 at 07:59 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
quote:
Originally posted by dmac
I agree that cyclists are often in the wrong but I have far more sympathy for them as they come off so much worse in any collision, however in your
original case the car driver turned across the path of a moving vehicle that he could not see* and so he is in the wrong. You have assumed a few
things about the cyclist that you could not possibly know as you only read about the accident and you are building your case around these assumptions
rather than the facts that you have posted.
* I have assumed that the car driver could not see the cyclist but if he could see him then it makes his case even worse.
in your second case it sounds like the woman is in the wrong, what would your opinion be if she pushed her baby out right in front of your car and you
couldn't stop in time?
Duncan
The fact that cyclists 'usually' come off worse just makes this particular idiot's actions even more idiotic. The FACT that he
struck the vehicle, near its rear, hard enough to end up going over the top PROVES that he was a) not looking where he was going or b) not riding
within a speed at which he could stop in the amount of road that he could see to be clear.
The very idea that cyclists should be allowed to dominate the city streets like this is ridiculous. Nobody ever allowed to turn right just in case a
lunatic cyclist shouls suddenly shoot out from behind a series of slowed/stopped cars and plough full pelt across a junction without a care in the
world is 'not sensible' and 'not reasonable'.
If I was a judge and the driver of the car came up in front of me that would be a resounding not guilty, in fact I would throw the case out without a
hearing.
As for the hapless woman with the pushchair, a lot would depnd on WHY I couldn't stop. In a case like the one described, on a bike steaming up
the inside of stopped cars, in the same lane as them, woman crossing from the other side, I would hope that it would be a custodial sentence.
Where the cyclist struck the car has as much to do with the speed of the car as the speed of the bike and it sounds like the road was clear until the
idiot in the car made an illegal manoeuvre.
Cyclists are allowed to use the roads and car drivers are specifically warned by rule 211 of the highway code to watch out for them in exactly this
scenario.
If you were the judge you would get overturned on appeal.
Since the bike is allowed to be in that position the equivalent would be for the woman to push her child from a stationary lane into a moving lane, it
still sounds like she is in the wrong to me.
Duncan
|
|
|
Richard Quinn
|
| posted on 6/2/11 at 08:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by roadrunner
This is going to the longest argument yet.
The popcorn has long gone.
I can't wait for some better weather. I think that there is a touch of cabin fever setting in with everyone being confined to the garage for too
long!
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 6/2/11 at 08:48 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dmac
Cyclists are allowed to use the roads and car drivers are specifically warned by rule 211 of the highway code to watch out for them in exactly this
scenario.
Rule 72 (for cyclists)
On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before
you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
[Edited on 6/2/11 by interestedparty]
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
.JPG)
