I saw this and thought it was quite intresting.
Link
The moral of the story is if you hit one of these lycra clad, sanctimonious a-holes when they speed through a red light, reverse and make sure the jobs done properly before disposing of their silly looking hat with a camera.
the moral of the story is, they should start paying road tax
It was on the news this morning, and what it amounted to, as far as the cyclists were concerned, was that it was something they could have INSTEAD of insurance. I've never tried to buy cyclist insurance, but I will bet it exists.
and they should have insurance...........
If the cyclist is a member of the CTC (Cyclists Touring Club), which he could well be, he is automatically insured for damage he may cause to others.
I don't care if they have insurance, just number plates.
All well and good naming and shaming car drivers who drive recklessly but a level playing field would have cyclists being personally identifiable. I
bet a few fines given out to red light jumpers would soon pay for the scheme and improve road safety no end.
How about this saddo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVI5E3tLPOE
[Edited on 1/2/11 by T66]
Ok - I'm a cyclist and a Locoster.
I commute to work on my bike.
I have massive sympathy for cyclists on our roads today - most drivers don't give a toss and will 'accidentally' kill a cyclist without
any risk of harming themselves.
I get overtaken on blind corners (who knows what's coming the other way?), they overtake within 12" when travelling at 50mph, during the
overtake they will pull in sharply when something comes the other way without giving me a thought, they don't see me and cut-me up at junctions
Their vehicle weighs at least 1 tonne - my bike and I weigh 100kgs at most. Cyclists don't stand a chance and will die in the slightest collision
- drivers should take more care.
I think the camera is to help prosecute dangerous drivers and is used WITH INSURANCE.
Road Tax: cars have to pay to use the road because of the damage they cause - cyclists don't cause damage and, along with pedestrians, have a
legal RIGHT to use the public highways without taxation.
I can't defend jumping red lights - but it's not going to kill anyone
quote:
Originally posted by blakep82
the moral of the story is, they should start paying road tax
Good point about Road Tax - when I'm cycling to work there are two cars on my drive not going anywhere that both have Road Tax
[Edited on 1/2/11 by JAG]
Thats not the point. You use a road, you should pay, even if it's only a token amount.
Canoes have to pay to use a river.
I already do pay - for two cars that I'm not driving when I'm cycling to work.
I suspect it's the same situation for most cyclists on our roads.
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
Ok - I'm a cyclist and a Locoster.
I commute to work on my bike.
I have massive sympathy for cyclists on our roads today - most drivers don't give a toss and will 'accidentally' kill a cyclist without any risk of harming themselves.
I get overtaken on blind corners (who knows what's coming the other way?), they overtake within 12" when travelling at 50mph, during the overtake they will pull in sharply when something comes the other way without giving me a thought, they don't see me and cut-me up at junctions
Their vehicle weighs at least 1 tonne - my bike and I weigh 100kgs at most. Cyclists don't stand a chance and will die in the slightest collision - drivers should take more care.
I think the camera is to help prosecute dangerous drivers and is used WITH INSURANCE.
Road Tax: cars have to pay to use the road because of the damage they cause - cyclists don't cause damage and, along with pedestrians, have a legal RIGHT to use the public highways without taxation.
I can't defend jumping red lights - but it's not going to kill anyone
Thats complete bullshit, was 100% the cyclists fault, he had been overtaken and the Highway codes states once someone attempts an overtake you should
back off.
168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never
obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a
two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.
He under took the van on a bend, shouted at him when he should have merged behind him, then once he'd uindertaken the van going round the bend,
the van overtook him again he moved right in to the side of the van, instead of just backing off and going behind.
That bloke looks, sounds, rides and acts like a cock.
Maybe the van driver should have given him a little more room and certainly shouldnt have got out and smacked him, but if some uninsured twat ran his
'vehicle' down the side of my van i'd be pissed off!
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
I already do pay - for two cars that I'm not driving when I'm cycling to work.
I suspect it's the same situation for most cyclists on our roads.
I've found that a lot of cyclists like to be confrontational...
I had a confrontation with a cyclist once when I was queuing for a roundabout. Motorbikes coming down the outside so i pull left to let them through,
10 seconds later a cyclist comes down the inside, stops as there isnt enough room to get through, slaps the rear quarter of the car and shouts at me
'stop being a bleeping prick'.
I can see why the thought went through his head, and to him it may well have appeared that i was trying to block cyclists, when in fact i had even
considered that there may be cyclists intending to undertake (no cycle lane or anything).
Its all right saying that bicycles should pay road tax but how much should they pay?
Road damage is accepted to be proportional to the fourth power of the axle load of the vehicle so if the axle load of a bike is 1/10 that of a car
then the tax ratio should be 1/10,000.
So if the road tax for a car is £110 then the bike should pay 1.1p, the cost of collecting it is so much more than the tax that it just isn't
worth it.
Duncan
Im not fussed by taxing bikes, i think people should be paid to ride them for commutin, but if used on road for anything more than lesiure, they should be properly registered, insured and riders should have at least a theory test. (im sure most have car licenses anyway)
Road tax might be taking it a bit too far, but insurance? .... definitely - cyclists are equally capable of causing an accident and/or damage to people and property so they need to be identifiable and held accountable, just like any other road user.
quote:
Originally posted by designer
Thats not the point. You use a road, you should pay, even if it's only a token amount.
Canoes have to pay to use a river.
what about the fact that youre not really allowed to film public property without a license?
Im sick of cyclists who think they can do what they want, saw one a while ago shouting and swearing at a car driver whod blasted his horn at him cause
he cycled through a red light on a junction the car was crossing.
if theyre going to use the road, they should follow the same rules as cars at traffic lights, and the cops should start fining them as strictly as
they do us.
I was reading about a case a while back where there was a queue of traffic heading into a city. So one of the cars in the queue lets someone who was
coming the other way turn to the right (across the queue of traffic) and into a side street. So chummy has nearly completed his turn when a cyclist
comes shooting up the inside of the cars in the queue and rides full pelt into the turning car, and hits him near the back end.
The cyclist is going that fast that he ends up going over the roof of the turning car, and the bike is of course written off. So it's pretty
obvious that the cyclist had his head down, pumping away, glancing at the watch on his wrist, thinking he was going to get a good time today, maybe
even shave a couple of seconds off his best, thinking what mugs all the fatties in the cars were for waiting in a queue, then bang!
But that's not the funny part, accidents aren't usually funny. The funny part is that the cyclist reckoned it was the car driver's
fault! 
I filmed a leisure ride the other day, there were 3 occasions where I felt cars were too close etc. Good to have the footage in the bank I reckon.
I do agree that insurance might be a good idea for cyclists. I have public liability insurance which might cover cycling....I'll have to check.
Insurance just makes sense.
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
The moral of the story is if you hit one of these lycra clad, sanctimonious a-holes when they speed through a red light, reverse and make sure the jobs done properly before disposing of their silly looking hat with a camera.
quote:
Originally posted by A1
what about the fact that youre not really allowed to film public property without a license?
quote:
Originally posted by Colnago_Man
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
The moral of the story is if you hit one of these lycra clad, sanctimonious a-holes when they speed through a red light, reverse and make sure the jobs done properly before disposing of their silly looking hat with a camera.
Hopefully MikeRJ its a member of your family or someone you love, then see if you attitude to another persons live changes.
As always, there are 2 sides to this story and the 2 will probably never agree.
I have seen plenty of steady, safe and courteous cyclist nearly knocked off because of someone either not seeing them or maybe deliberately moving
over, who knows? But I have equally seen so many cyclist weaving from side-to-side when pedalling furiously with the bike going over to the left and
right making it 3 times as wide. If I was on a bike and heard a car coming up behind me I would at least tray and make it easier for them to overtake
without actually putting myself in danger.
It's similar to the way in which motorcylclists get 'tarred' because of a few idiots' actions. With cyclists it's the same
with a classic example when they take it on themselves to use the car they have just undertaken as a place to rest there hand while they wait
for the lights so they don't have to put their foot down.
The idiot in the video was most definitely a fool by getting himself into that situation in the first place! Yes, the van should not have cut over
like he did but he did, and the sensible thing for the cyclist to do was to back off and at least have a bette chance of living! It was pure
bloody-mindedness that got him knocked off in the first place!!
I have been riding motorcycles for well over 30 years and am 100% sure that the only reason I am still here is because I ride to stay alive, which
quite often means letting some D**K get away with a blatant and dangerous action, but at least the only thing that got hurt was my pride.
I could rant about his all day but the only way things can improve is by some cyclists taking a little more responsibility for their survival, and
that does not mean adding a camera and insurance so at least they have a claim when they do get knocked off.
And breathe................
Ive been driving quite a while now, and among the various altercations that come with driving , the two most significant ones were with cyclists, not
blokes going to work but the racing bike / lycra attitudes that pervade .
Single track road, group of 8 or 9 coming toward me in a group across the full width, I slowed to a crawl, they didnt slow off at all the group split
and thought they could maintain their speed while slipping down each side of my car. The gap either side was probably 8 maybe 10 inches.
Both mirrors were clattered , and when I beeped , I had a lunatic in through my window screaming at me I should of stopped and threatening to chin me.
While the rest of the hard lads encouraged him.
Kids sitting in the car crying because of lunatic, If I had been out on my own, I suspect I would of turned round and "not seen them"....as
I drove over them.
Car drivers can be wankers, however pound for pound cyclists can be very very aggressive, that video I posted on page 1 is a classic example of
"I have right of way, Im a cyclist" The guy is a prick, who thinks what he is doing is right posting up videos of car drivers cutting him
up.
General driving standards are pretty crap, under taking is now allowed, motorway onslips you dont give way now, your force lane 1 traffic out the
way...If your being overtaken you now have to accelerate. etc etc etc
Bottom line - No traffic police, no enforcement, no point in telling the police if your cut up as everyone does it. HATOs driving on the motorways,
well what can I say - Why do you need a £35000 4x4 to carry two fat bokes and a yard brush ?
Maybe the world would be a better place if , drivers waved and let you out the junctions once in a while, men held doors open for ladies (How sexist),
women didnt wear tracksuits (How sexist) , Politeness is the key to a happy life...
Only way it will get any better, is cyclists ditch head cameras, car drivers respect cyclists, and we all start waving and smiling at each
other....
Simples
T66 - Amen to that 
SOME cyclists are W@nkers - no doubt
SOME car drivers are W@nkers - no doubt
However it's the cyclists that will get killed in most situations hence they tend to be a bit more angry when these incidents occur.
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
SOME cyclists are W@nkers - no doubt
SOME car drivers are W@nkers - no doubt
However it's the cyclists that will get killed in most situations hence they tend to be a bit more angry when these incidents occur.
quote:
Originally posted by matt_gsxr
Drivers using their vehicle as a weapon should be prosecuted as such.
I take your point.
A cyclist will always come of worst when mixed up with a car, I once ended up having a Subaru Outback not see me, I rode at a good pace straight into
the back window.....lol Bent bike,bent face, & whiplash.
Being on a bike is no different to motorbikes, its not generally you who is going to cause your death or injury, you therefore have to assume everyone
is out to kill you.
Driving safely at speed (or riding) is a system, whether your in a car or riding a bike - if you step outside that system (if you have one) and start
undertaking, not giving way, shoddy overtaking, picking your nose, using your mobile, you raise the chances of ending up in a paramedics bucket.
Cyclists/Riders have even more to be concerned with, they are better of reading "Roadcraft" than bothering with cameras able to record them
going in the paramedics bucket...
Keep waving & smiling , its the key to life...
44 years ago I was fined for not having lights on my bike after dusk, I was a teenager and the £4 was a lot in those days. You could also be prosecuted for riding on the pavement or going the wrong way down a one way street. Nowadays no-one polices anything like this so it is rife where we live. I ride a cycle and a motorcycle and I do watch other road users for my own safety as a matter of course but there's always someone who will think of a new way to catch you unawares. Everyone should try riding as well as driving just to see how the other half survives.
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
44 years ago I was fined for not having lights on my bike after dusk, I was a teenager and the £4 was a lot in those days. You could also be prosecuted for riding on the pavement or going the wrong way down a one way street. Nowadays no-one polices anything like this so it is rife where we live. I ride a cycle and a motorcycle and I do watch other road users for my own safety as a matter of course but there's always someone who will think of a new way to catch you unawares. Everyone should try riding as well as driving just to see how the other half survives.
Sorry but I think in Cities most of these "proffessional" cylcists you see on your daily commute should be shot at BIRTH. In Aberdeen there
is more than one that cycles well in the middle on the road causing two lanes of traffic to squeeze together making for idiots forcing into queues and
braking hard.
I think that by minimum they should have :
1) Insurance
2) Pay Road tax - THEY USE THE ROAD
3) Display a Vehicle Registration - so we can identify them if they cause traffic incident or lash out at CARS.
Then there is the bit where it is ok for a cyclist to bump onto the pavment then bump off again to miss ligths or cross the road with the green man.
If I did that in a CAR or on a MOTORBIKE i;d be strung up
[Edited on 2/202/11 by mad4x4]
i can see why both car drivers and cyclists are annoyed by this. Too many idiots on both if you ask me.
The problem i have witnessed myself is most people dont see the cyclists, after buying myself by first mountain bike in 15 years and riding it most
weekends i have nearly been killed by atleast 3 cars. What gets my goat is on every incident they looked right at me, eye contact between us yet they
still pull out infront of you meaning i have to swerve to avoid them, then they just carry on without a sorry or wave.
Ive always been a polite driver, giving room to anyone who needs it including large lorries on corners and the such where they overhang the road, but
must admit to not seeing motorbikes on islands a few time in my life but have managed to stop about 1 foot out of a junction, then waving sorry to
them as they shake their heads.
But it seems that many people just dont care for anyone else but themselves, regardless of the cost (as in lives) to others, not only on the highway
but anywhere else in public. The amount of times i have avoided a smack both in my cars or on bike due to other peoples idiotic attitude must have
saved the insurance companies about £50K+, yet my insurance is still silly high so why should i be different and just 'go with the flow'.
Both cyclists and cars are missused and until those missusing them get punished its only going to get worse, the filming of it only helps show what
the police have been missing for years but nothing will happen, no laws changed and we will continue to spiral downwards until it does.
Dog eat Dog world.
I've posted a link to these cameras or types of them before, a search on ebay brings up MD80 mini cam.
My brother has one and its quiet impressive with a fast mini SD card.
MINI CAM LINK
7 day shop sell these without a micro SD for £10.99 with free delivery so worth a punt.
I think as cameras on bicycles AND cars and lorries etc get more common then there probably will be an improvement in driving standards, and a
reduction of road rage incidents, which would be a good thing.
On the subject of why some drivers don't see cyclists, or motorbikes- that a very interesting question. I think we can rule out stupidity,
probably sheer carelessness too, although people affected by such behaviour will swear it is a combination of both. My guess is the problem is to do
with the way people perceive things, and the way their sub conscious minds will block out things that it thinks doesn't concern the active part
of the brain. It's a way of coping with the information overload that would happen if there wasn't some kind of filter operating.
So drivers tend to look for specific things, and at a junction it will be other cars and larger vehicles. Yes, of course they should see and
react to smaller stuff such as bikes, but sometimes they don't. How to prevent this? Good question. Workable answers on a postcard to the
government.
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
I was reading about a case a while back where there was a queue of traffic heading into a city. So one of the cars in the queue lets someone who was coming the other way turn to the right (across the queue of traffic) and into a side street. So chummy has nearly completed his turn when a cyclist comes shooting up the inside of the cars in the queue and rides full pelt into the turning car, and hits him near the back end.
The cyclist is going that fast that he ends up going over the roof of the turning car, and the bike is of course written off. So it's pretty obvious that the cyclist had his head down, pumping away, glancing at the watch on his wrist, thinking he was going to get a good time today, maybe even shave a couple of seconds off his best, thinking what mugs all the fatties in the cars were for waiting in a queue, then bang!
But that's not the funny part, accidents aren't usually funny. The funny part is that the cyclist reckoned it was the car driver's fault!
quote:
Originally posted by mad4x4
In Aberdeen there is more than one that cycles well in the middle on the road causing two lanes of traffic to squeeze [Edited on 2/202/11 by mad4x4]
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
I was reading about a case a while back where there was a queue of traffic heading into a city. So one of the cars in the queue lets someone who was coming the other way turn to the right (across the queue of traffic) and into a side street. So chummy has nearly completed his turn when a cyclist comes shooting up the inside of the cars in the queue and rides full pelt into the turning car, and hits him near the back end.
The cyclist is going that fast that he ends up going over the roof of the turning car, and the bike is of course written off. So it's pretty obvious that the cyclist had his head down, pumping away, glancing at the watch on his wrist, thinking he was going to get a good time today, maybe even shave a couple of seconds off his best, thinking what mugs all the fatties in the cars were for waiting in a queue, then bang!
But that's not the funny part, accidents aren't usually funny. The funny part is that the cyclist reckoned it was the car driver's fault!
If you invite someone across or out of a junction YOU are responsible for what happens if somone drives or rides into that vehicle even if that vehicle was driving too fast, so NEVER EVER invite someone out, cos you'll be done for it!
When I was a m/c instructor one off our pupils (who was filtering perfectly safely) had someone pull out infront them from a private driveway. Both them and the person who invited them out got done! If you ain't a traffic cop, you ain't allowed to direct traffic.
ATB
Simon
quote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
I'm capable of going about my business without anyone else's help.
So should everyone else be.
I once offered to guide a friend who was reversing his very long van and transporter into his drive on a busy road.
He quite rightly refused my help and instructed me to stand aside and take nothing to do with it.
The success of the manovure was his responsibility.
As it should be.
The flashing of headlights is a big no no , it implies the road is safe/clear when in fact it may not be.
Let others make their driving decisions.
Only time flashing headlights get used, is to warn others of speed cameras lol and when someone oncoming is about to head on you.....
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
I was reading about a case a while back where there was a queue of traffic heading into a city. So one of the cars in the queue lets someone who was coming the other way turn to the right (across the queue of traffic) and into a side street. So chummy has nearly completed his turn when a cyclist comes shooting up the inside of the cars in the queue and rides full pelt into the turning car, and hits him near the back end.
The cyclist is going that fast that he ends up going over the roof of the turning car, and the bike is of course written off. So it's pretty obvious that the cyclist had his head down, pumping away, glancing at the watch on his wrist, thinking he was going to get a good time today, maybe even shave a couple of seconds off his best, thinking what mugs all the fatties in the cars were for waiting in a queue, then bang!
But that's not the funny part, accidents aren't usually funny. The funny part is that the cyclist reckoned it was the car driver's fault!
If you invite someone across or out of a junction YOU are responsible for what happens if somone drives or rides into that vehicle even if that vehicle was driving too fast, so NEVER EVER invite someone out, cos you'll be done for it!
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
So one of the cars in the queue lets someone who was coming the other way turn to the right
So, tell me, whose fault do you think the accident I described was?
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
So one of the cars in the queue lets someone who was coming the other way turn to the right
So, tell me, whose fault do you think the accident I described was?
Harsh as it may seem but even leaving a gap is technically an invitation. Not leaving a gap maybe construed as arrogant and bloody minded.
Fault was both the person who left the gap and who was crossing the road.
ATB
Simon
Then I suggest you read up on the highway code, do some advanced driving courses, maybe become an instructor of sorts the you won't end up in
deep shit.
The cyclist has a right of way, and that is what counts, irrespective of whether he's got his eyes shut or travelling at 100 mph. The car blocked
that right of way. End of.
The driver of the turning car should ensure that his manoeuvre will be safe considering a) where he is going, what's happening from b) both left
and right and c) from the rear. If he is relying on a third party "the invitor", he has failed to do relevant checks and relied on someone
else whoi may have assumed he has done them.
You need to get out on a bike and see what tossers drivers can be. 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.
ATB
Simon
[Edited on 4/2/11 by Simon]
I am a
very big petrol head and I also cycle 15 miles a day to work, partly due to the Humber Bridge toll being £2.70 each way.
Now I where high visibility clothing have two back lights and two high powered front lights and still people don't see me. I have close shaves
nearly every day and I have been run over twice, last being a Picasso cutting a t junction with me turning right and ending up going through the
windscreen.
For every cyclist that jumps a red light I bet there are double if not more car drivers who do the same. Motor bikes travelling up the inside of cuing
traffic, For every arsole bike rider there is ten times more arsole drivers.
Some cars don't even pay road tax ,why should I when I have two cars at home with tax on the screen. I have a petrol turbo which I pay more tax
for just because it uses more fuel than a 1LTR Polo, but do I get a reduction for not using it.
People cannot moan about one or the other unless they experience it for themselves.
I ride my bike as best as I can ,stopping when I have too and giving way as I should, yes I might ride a little fast for most people, I managed to get
a free slipstream from a moped using the cycle lane this week clocking 33 mph in the process,
but I will loose my cool when cars cut me up, try to overtake when there's obviously not enough room, pull out in front of
me the same way a driver shouts at another driver. And I will kick the living poo out of the next person that knocks me off
my bike , even if I end up in trouble, they need to feel the pain too.
I drive fast most of the time , but I will also be courteous to a fellow cyclist while I am behind the wheel.
On the matter of the camera, I was looking at getting one for when I drive the Indy.
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.
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
quote:
Originally posted by owelly
This is what we need. NSFW!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8
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.
This is the type of behaviour I see a lot in London
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H95pnjNVU8&NR=1
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
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
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
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 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 ?
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 ?
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]
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
I can't defend jumping red lights - but it's not going to kill anyone
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.
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.
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
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
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.
This is going to the longest argument yet.
The popcorn has long gone.
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
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
quote:
Originally posted by roadrunner
This is going to the longest argument yet.
The popcorn has long gone.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by roadrunner
This is going to the longest argument yet.
The popcorn has long gone.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by dmac
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
Just been watching top gear and they had this argument with Clarkson taking the motorists side so that must mean that the cyclists are right!
Duncan
Just noticed that I've gone over 100 posts and been promoted to 'Builder', I always wondered what I had to do to get rid of the Junior
tag
Thanks to all those who kept this thread open for their help.
Duncan
quote:
Originally posted by roadrunner
quote:
Originally posted by dmac
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
Am I allowed to go on my bike.
quote:
Originally posted by roadrunner
quote:
Originally posted by dmac
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
Am I allowed to go on my bike.
I think this disagreement has been too good-natured to be worthy of popcorn. Let's hope none of the people reading this are ever either the driver or the cyclist in that scenario (or any other accident thing for that matter).
quote:
Originally posted by Colnago_Man
Hopefully MikeRJ its a member of your family or someone you love, then see if you attitude to another persons live changes.
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
I think this disagreement has been too good-natured to be worthy of popcorn. Let's hope none of the people reading this are ever either the driver or the cyclist in that scenario (or any other accident thing for that matter).
This whole cyclist vs car argument reminds me of Steam giving way to Sail. In theory it is great but if you are in a dinghy in the Solent don't expect the supertanker coming through to alter its course because you have decided to test the rule. You might be right but you are still dead.
as a driving obsessive who has recently started spending a lot of time on two wheels the example on the video seems pretty even.
The cyclist decides against defensive driving ie he can see what the van is likely to do at the junction but chooses not to slow down, carries on at
full speed and prepares to scream at the van instead.
then round the corner seems to hold the middle of the road despite the fact that parked cars are a good distance still ahead.
if i was biking and spotted a van that didnt seem entirely aware of my prescence i'd be free wheeling a bit, hands ready on brakes until he well
away.
both driver and cyclist seem driven by the same p*nis led machismo driving style. both idiots. both would rather risk a crash, or a fight than back
down.
jeez guys there are worse things in life.
[Edited on 7/2/11 by swanny]