One single thing that makes you think "knob" Vol 2
Discussion
OpulentBob said:
The collision with the kid was entirely avoidable by the cyclist. Yes the Audi's driving wasn't great but that in no way excuses the cyclist from not being able to stop in case of an emergency, like, oh a kid running (walking) out. He had to blame the car. Stupid over-bright strobe front light marks him out as a prize dick too. My front cree is like a strobe of justice, but I'd never use the strobe function on the road.
Cyclist fail. Cue PH lycrista rushing to his defence in 5, 4, 3...
No, Bob. I think you'd struggle to find any competent cyclist who'd defend that shower. Right from the start of the video, he's not doing himself any favours. Squeezing past the Audi as traffic is moving off ahead? Fail. Putting himself between the railings and the Audi? Not somewhere I'd position myself, especially as by this point it is clear that the driver is hesitant, whether because the cyclist's silly positioning is worrying them, or they're simply lost, or at least on unfamiliar roads. Then the failure to recognise that green is not "Go" but actually "proceed if the way ahead is clear". I'll ignore the light changing, as he was very close to the line when it went to amber. I'd probably have kept moving in that situation, whether in a car or on a bike, but it should have informed his plan for dealing with the pedestrian crossing situation ahead. Why did he not look up, to determine the light situation for the pedestrians? Why did he not observe the child so close to the carriageway? Most importanly, in terms of 'having proper control' of the bike, why were his hands nowhere near the brake levers?Cyclist fail. Cue PH lycrista rushing to his defence in 5, 4, 3...
I think the Audi did play a part in contributing to the situation but certainly not to the collision. The child, or more importantly, it's parent/guardian played a part in the collision, by failing to control the child, and also failing to recognise that the 'green man' also means 'proceed with care' and not 'Go!Go!Go!'. It could just as easily have been a car or motorcycle running a red, that came around the corner, after all. At least the child appeared to be more upset than hurt, and at least the cyclist had the decency to turn around and go back. Many, I fear, would just ride away as fast as possible. I'd say 95% cyclist, 5% parent/child combo to blame. At least this will serve as a non-fatal "look before you cross" lesson for the kid. I fear that the "CarefulCyclist" will learn nothing, though, as he seems to be convinced that it was everybody's fault but his. He seems the type to go ranting on about 'vulnerable road users', but in this case the most vulnerable road user was a child, and any parent will tell you that, no matter how much you drill it into them, sometimes excitement gets the better of them, and road safety takes a back seat. It was the rider's duty to watch out for the safety of more vulnerable road users than himself. That particular mantra works both ways.
carlove said:
What really annoyed me is how he put "look what you caused", taking zero responsibility for an accident that was completely his fault.
Just think if the child was injured enough for the emergency services to attend (not to say they didn't after he left) and he said to the police "it wasn't my fault it was the car in front of me's fault for going right in the left lane", I dare say that wouldn't be good enough.
Just think, though, carlove. If the Police had attended, "CarefulCyclist" (his Youtube account name, ironically) would probably have produced the video as 'evidence' of the Audi's failings. Hopefully, after viewing it, the Police would be keen to have a less than friendly chat with the cyclist about his behaviour. Ultimately he's just about as bad a cyclist (on the evidence of that clip, at least) as the knob end drivers who absolutely have to pass a cyclist, no matter how inadvisable it might be at any given moment. In the end, though, the "CarefulCyclist" got 8 comments (as I type) under that video. Apart from his own posts, 100% of those comments disagreed with his view of the incident.Just think if the child was injured enough for the emergency services to attend (not to say they didn't after he left) and he said to the police "it wasn't my fault it was the car in front of me's fault for going right in the left lane", I dare say that wouldn't be good enough.
I'd want to see the face the officers would make if they watched that video, expecting the Audi to be at blame, then seeing his crap driving had nothing to do with it.
I've noticed there is one comment on the video blaming the child, don't think the child can be blamed at all, saw the green man and started crossing, the dad should be holding his hand there though, it's a nasty road to cross, mainly due to people jumping the lights, seems to happen there an awful lot from all types of vehicle.
The cyclist didn't actually brake at all having looked again.
I've noticed there is one comment on the video blaming the child, don't think the child can be blamed at all, saw the green man and started crossing, the dad should be holding his hand there though, it's a nasty road to cross, mainly due to people jumping the lights, seems to happen there an awful lot from all types of vehicle.
The cyclist didn't actually brake at all having looked again.
Having the crossing so far away from the traffic light that controls vehicular traffic over it seems crazy to me, notwithstanding the 'protection' that should, in theory, be given by the yellow box.
A traffic light 'repeater' at the crossing itself would help prevent this sort of f
kwittery putting people's lives at risks.
To all intents and purposes, this is a pedestrian crossing with green lights for pedestrians with no corresponding red light for vehicles.
Whoever designed +/or signed off that crossing installation should have much on his conscience.
A traffic light 'repeater' at the crossing itself would help prevent this sort of f
kwittery putting people's lives at risks.To all intents and purposes, this is a pedestrian crossing with green lights for pedestrians with no corresponding red light for vehicles.
Whoever designed +/or signed off that crossing installation should have much on his conscience.
Cliftonite said:
Having the crossing so far away from the traffic light that controls vehicular traffic over it seems crazy to me, notwithstanding the 'protection' that should, in theory, be given by the yellow box.
A traffic light 'repeater' at the crossing itself would help prevent this sort of fkwittery putting people's lives at risks.
To all intents and purposes, this is a pedestrian crossing with green lights for pedestrians with no corresponding red light for vehicles.
Whoever designed +/or signed off that crossing installation should have much on his conscience.
I redesigned a slip road on a fairly major Trunk Road a few years ago, and someone was killed there in a high speed crash a couple of years later. It was speed and booze, according to the Police, but maybe if I hadn't resurfaced, widened and lit the slip, he wouldn't have been encouraged to put his foot down. The old bumpy dark slip road was horrible and kept speeds down.A traffic light 'repeater' at the crossing itself would help prevent this sort of f
kwittery putting people's lives at risks.To all intents and purposes, this is a pedestrian crossing with green lights for pedestrians with no corresponding red light for vehicles.
Whoever designed +/or signed off that crossing installation should have much on his conscience.
Should I feel guilty?
(ETA I don't, by the way.)
A traffic light "repeater" would mean people stopping in the box junction, which presumably is there for a reason, a(n) historic problem at that junction. A secondary signal would need to be seen from the main junction stop line, and judging by that video the geometry doesn't work.
It's the cyclists fault, pure and simple.
carlove said:
Just came across this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6CF8qvXQ7M
The super knob on the bike reckons the lost knob in the Audi caused his accident. What do you think?
I know this junction well, and he'd know what the Audi did is very common and that the pedestrians round the corner would now have a green man.
"Video removed by user"...perhaps he has seen the error of his ways, or has been lurking in this forum...The super knob on the bike reckons the lost knob in the Audi caused his accident. What do you think?
I know this junction well, and he'd know what the Audi did is very common and that the pedestrians round the corner would now have a green man.
OpulentBob said:
The collision with the kid was entirely avoidable by the cyclist. Yes the Audi's driving wasn't great but that in no way excuses the cyclist from not being able to stop in case of an emergency, like, oh a kid running (walking) out. He had to blame the car. Stupid over-bright strobe front light marks him out as a prize dick too. My front cree is like a strobe of justice, but I'd never use the strobe function on the road.
Cyclist fail. Cue PH lycrista rushing to his defence in 5, 4, 3...
Video has been removed. Funny that - not shy in highlighting the faults of others but removes the video of his mistake. What a hero.Cyclist fail. Cue PH lycrista rushing to his defence in 5, 4, 3...
Merges, and the fact that seemingly nobody knows how to they work.
Driving a route this week while I'm on training.. normal single carriageway, with a series of traffic lights that open up to 2 lanes and merge shortly after the junction.
Every single time I moved right to get past after the lights, it just went crazy. Either people in the left lane sat on each others bumpers so nobody from the right could merge; people in the right lane blasted forward and continued to overtake vehicles way past the actual merge (so they were effectively playing chicken with oncoming traffic) or a car would move to the right lane, at the front of the queue at the lights, then accelerate so slowly that 5-6 cars from the left would cross the junction before them.
What is it with people not being able to use these properly? Is it an ego thing? All we need to do is 'let one in, pass one' and everybody could get on with their journey..
Driving a route this week while I'm on training.. normal single carriageway, with a series of traffic lights that open up to 2 lanes and merge shortly after the junction.
Every single time I moved right to get past after the lights, it just went crazy. Either people in the left lane sat on each others bumpers so nobody from the right could merge; people in the right lane blasted forward and continued to overtake vehicles way past the actual merge (so they were effectively playing chicken with oncoming traffic) or a car would move to the right lane, at the front of the queue at the lights, then accelerate so slowly that 5-6 cars from the left would cross the junction before them.
What is it with people not being able to use these properly? Is it an ego thing? All we need to do is 'let one in, pass one' and everybody could get on with their journey..
Oh, and people trying to police the roads.
Now this one might split opinions...
Driving up the M6 from Birmingham. Rush hour traffic but surprisingly it's moving quite well..
The gantry says 50mph. I'm in the outside lane as I don't need to get off for a while.
Lane 1 is doing 50-55mph. Lane 2 is doing 55-60mph. Us (lane 3) are doing 47mph.
Yes, the gantry says 50, but lanes 1 and 2 are effectively undertaking us, because the little red 107 2 cars in front of me HAS to travel at 47mph. There's a 20+ car gap in front of him while the other 2 lanes are passing us. Why not just move over?
Fair enough, he didn't want to speed, but everyone else was more than willing to, I don't see what he was gaining by (IMO) being a jobsworth and holding us all up. I know on paper he wasn't doing anything wrong, but a bit of common sense would say that if everyone else wants to go faster, just move over to a slower lane..
Am I being an arse or can you see my point? It wasn't even like he was going slightly slower, he was holding it 2-3mph below the gantry sign and a good 10-15mph below the 'slower' 2 lanes, it was just kinda obnoxious..
Now this one might split opinions...
Driving up the M6 from Birmingham. Rush hour traffic but surprisingly it's moving quite well..
The gantry says 50mph. I'm in the outside lane as I don't need to get off for a while.
Lane 1 is doing 50-55mph. Lane 2 is doing 55-60mph. Us (lane 3) are doing 47mph.
Yes, the gantry says 50, but lanes 1 and 2 are effectively undertaking us, because the little red 107 2 cars in front of me HAS to travel at 47mph. There's a 20+ car gap in front of him while the other 2 lanes are passing us. Why not just move over?
Fair enough, he didn't want to speed, but everyone else was more than willing to, I don't see what he was gaining by (IMO) being a jobsworth and holding us all up. I know on paper he wasn't doing anything wrong, but a bit of common sense would say that if everyone else wants to go faster, just move over to a slower lane..
Am I being an arse or can you see my point? It wasn't even like he was going slightly slower, he was holding it 2-3mph below the gantry sign and a good 10-15mph below the 'slower' 2 lanes, it was just kinda obnoxious..
carlove said:
Just came across this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6CF8qvXQ7M
The super knob on the bike reckons the lost knob in the Audi caused his accident. What do you think?
I know this junction well, and he'd know what the Audi did is very common and that the pedestrians round the corner would now have a green man.
Can someone summarise what happened? Looks like the video is gone.The super knob on the bike reckons the lost knob in the Audi caused his accident. What do you think?
I know this junction well, and he'd know what the Audi did is very common and that the pedestrians round the corner would now have a green man.
iva cosworth said:
People driving with their dog in an inappropriate place.
On their lap and today I saw a medium to large dog laid out on top of the dash of a lorry.
The poor pooch will be the first to die in an impact.
I'm not even a dog person but it's still knobbish to transport a pet like that.
+1On their lap and today I saw a medium to large dog laid out on top of the dash of a lorry.
The poor pooch will be the first to die in an impact.
I'm not even a dog person but it's still knobbish to transport a pet like that.
Small dogs sat on the parcel shelf will burst by the time they hit the windscreen in a crash. It makes me cringe that so called animal lovers can put their animals in such easily avoided danger.
Hooli said:
iva cosworth said:
People driving with their dog in an inappropriate place.
On their lap and today I saw a medium to large dog laid out on top of the dash of a lorry.
The poor pooch will be the first to die in an impact.
I'm not even a dog person but it's still knobbish to transport a pet like that.
+1On their lap and today I saw a medium to large dog laid out on top of the dash of a lorry.
The poor pooch will be the first to die in an impact.
I'm not even a dog person but it's still knobbish to transport a pet like that.
Small dogs sat on the parcel shelf will burst by the time they hit the windscreen in a crash. It makes me cringe that so called animal lovers can put their animals in such easily avoided danger.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff