|
14-7
5,745 posts
61 months
|
oyster said: I cycle past this spot nearly every day. Almosy all motor vehicles pass through at well above 30 - why is it ok for them but not a cycle? Nobody has said it is  . What people are saying is that 30mph is not a target and in certain circumstances is not acceptable.
|
|
|
heebeegeetee
19,577 posts
118 months
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,226 posts
118 months
|
grumpyscot said: Maybe its because pedestrians have right of way everywhere except on motorways. Are you being serious? Pedestrians are road users like anyone else.
|
|
|
will_
4,056 posts
73 months
|
heebeegeetee said: To be fair, he was found not guilty (although for reasons which I consider fairly shocking). But there are plenty of examples of drivers causing serious injury (or even death) and not going to prison.
|
|
|
defblade
2,823 posts
83 months
|
doogz said: The road I live on is an NSL. 60MPH.
There's a tight corner about 300m from my house. Is 60MPH a safe speed? No idea. Tell us where you live, and we'll all come and give it a go 
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
oyster
5,301 posts
118 months
|
14-7 said: oyster said: I cycle past this spot nearly every day. Almosy all motor vehicles pass through at well above 30 - why is it ok for them but not a cycle? Nobody has said it is . What people are saying is that 30mph is not a target and in certain circumstances is not acceptable. I agree with you, however the article clearly says the Chairwoman of the bench called it an 'unsafe speed'. Plainly it is an unsafe speed going through a red, but in my opinion 1mph is an unsafe speed through a red.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
110 months
|
ewenm said: daz3210 said: What is the speed limit of the road? If it's 30, how can 26 be an unsafe speed? Conditions/traffic/etc can make any road unsafe to travel along at the speed limit. That's why it's an upper limit not a mandatory speed to travel at. So what the magistrate should have said that in view of the conditions it was unsafe, not simply he is being done for traveling at an unsafe speed. I would be interested to hear if any car drivers have been done in a similar manner.
|
|
|
doogz
19,314 posts
57 months
|
defblade said: doogz said: The road I live on is an NSL. 60MPH.
There's a tight corner about 300m from my house. Is 60MPH a safe speed? No idea. Tell us where you live, and we'll all come and give it a go  http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/Doogzz/?acti...The time after that, he rolled it on top of himself.
|
|
|
ewenm
24,643 posts
115 months
|
daz3210 said: So what the magistrate should have said that in view of the conditions it was unsafe, not simply he is being done for traveling at an unsafe speed. I would be interested to hear if any car drivers have been done in a similar manner. Eh? It says the cyclist has been found guilty of "careless cycling", not for riding at an unsafe speed. The term "unsafe" doesn't imply any connection to the speed limit. When reading it I automatically assume it means "for the conditions" as that would be the only sensible way of determining what's safe and what isn't.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
110 months
|
In the Times Article said: Gaye Cheyne, chairwoman of the bench, said that he had shown a “lack of care and competence” and had been cycling at an “unsafe speed”. Yes I know you can assume, but sometimes to assume simply makes an ass of u and me. The cyclist may well have been travelling too fast for the conditions, we do not know, and nor may the Chairwoman of the bench. To take your argument a step further, everyone who has an accident must be guilty of either driving too fast, not concentrating or some other offence that you could dream up. If they were not, they wouldn't have crashed.
|
|
|
ewenm
24,643 posts
115 months
|
Who gives a flying f**k? He's been found guilty of careless cycling. He's caused some serious long-term injuries to someone and you're being pedantic about whether "unsafe speed for the conditions" is implied or not in the Chairwoman's statement of "unsafe speed". On our roads I walk, run, cycle and drive a lot, amazingly I'm yet to have a serious accident (other than some self-inflicted mountain biking crashes). It's idiots like this guy who give cyclists a bad name. daz3210 said: To take your argument a step further, everyone who has an accident must be guilty of either driving too fast, not concentrating or some other offence that you could dream up. If they were not, they wouldn't have crashed. That's probably true for a large number of "accidents". The principle of "being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear" doesn't just apply to driving.
|
|
|
14-7
5,745 posts
61 months
|
daz3210 said: In the Times Article said: Gaye Cheyne, chairwoman of the bench, said that he had shown a “lack of care and competence” and had been cycling at an “unsafe speed”. Yes I know you can assume, but sometimes to assume simply makes an ass of u and me. The cyclist may well have been travelling too fast for the conditions, we do not know, and nor may the Chairwoman of the bench. To take your argument a step further, everyone who has an accident must be guilty of either driving too fast, not concentrating or some other offence that you could dream up. If they were not, they wouldn't have crashed. He is only assuming like you were in your post about what the magistrate 'should' have said. The chairwoman of the bench will have a much better understanding of the case than you or I as she will have heard all the facts. No one is dreaming up offences, the cyclist was convicted of careless cycling and fined for it. I have seen car drivers crash and seriously injure people and only get 3 points and a paltry fine.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
110 months
|
14-7 said: He is only assuming like you were in your post about what the magistrate 'should' have said. I never said I assumed anything, I merely stated my opinion that the magistrate could have been clearer in what she said.
|
|
|
oyster
5,301 posts
118 months
|
But surely it can't be dangerous to ride a 100kg bicycle + rider at 26mph on that road (which I know well) whilst 2 ton cars and 10 ton buses do it all day long?
The main factor here is surely that the cyclist went through a red light.
I do not see why speed is a factor at all.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
110 months
|
oyster said: But surely it can't be dangerous to ride a 100kg bicycle + rider at 26mph on that road (which I know well) whilst 2 ton cars and 10 ton buses do it all day long?
The main factor here is surely that the cyclist went through a red light.
I do not see why speed is a factor at all. Speed could be a factor, but not automatically so. Speed is not a killer, it is the inappropriate use of speed that causes the problems.
|
|
|
Red Devil
4,321 posts
78 months
|
veryRS said: A cycle is a mechanically propelled vehicle so where is the difference? Er, what alternate universe do you inhabit? When framing the legislation Parliament was able to tell the difference between human and mechanical power generation. Viperz888 said: sugerbear said: No custodial sentence. I think in this case one was certainly deserved.  Absolutely shocking ruling. Unfortunately the magistrates had no power to impose such a sentence for the offence with which the cyclist was charged Times article said: She said the maximum fine the bench could impose was £1,000 and that she would not award compensation because it was inevitable that civil proceedings would follow. Hopefully the cyclist will be forced to pay very substantial damages. I doubt he will be insured, so how that will be realised in practice is another question.
|
|
|
Mr Sparkle
1,741 posts
40 months
|
daz3210 said: oyster said: But surely it can't be dangerous to ride a 100kg bicycle + rider at 26mph on that road (which I know well) whilst 2 ton cars and 10 ton buses do it all day long?
The main factor here is surely that the cyclist went through a red light.
I do not see why speed is a factor at all. Speed could be a factor, but not automatically so. Speed is not a killer, it is the inappropriate use of speed that causes the problems. I agree the main factor was going through the red light, but I wonder if they were considering the speed was too high because perhaps a bicycle has a longer braking distance than other road vehicles so a safe speed is lower? I don't know what the stopping distance of a bike is in comparison to a car though so i may be talking non-sense. - prepares after dinner experiment*
|
|
|
veryRS
409 posts
15 months
|
Red Devil said: veryRS said: A cycle is a mechanically propelled vehicle so where is the difference? Er, what alternate universe do you inhabit? When framing the legislation Parliament was able to tell the difference between human and mechanical power generation. Guess what - whatever the legislation says and your pedantism aside - a geared bycycle introduces mechanical advantage by using a sprocket and chain with ratioed gears and hence allows it to carry more kinetic energy than if it was a direct drive from rider legs to the driven wheel on a one to one ratio. Hence it should be treated as a mechanically propelled vehicle. I.e dips  t riders who think its amusing to blast through red lights and run over pedestrians should be treated as if they were driving a car or riding a motorbicycle.
|
|
|
lyonspride
702 posts
25 months
|
To throw a different perspective on this.....
Just over 10years ago, I was cycling to work along a cycle path that runs off the road and next to a pedestrian path (basically a big path split down the middle for cyclists).
As I approached a gentleman walking the other way, he suddenly threw his arms into the air and jumped in front of me shouting "YOU SHOULD BE ON THE ROAD" (clever when im touching on 20mph). I slammed straight into him, but remarkably managed to stay on the bike. Another pedestrian (who was entering the path from an adjacent housing estate) saw what happened and started to walk over just as the argument with this arrogant c*nt (he wouldn't listen even after pointing out all the cycle path signs) got into full swing, Im sure that had the witness not been there I could have ended up in trouble with the law through no fault of my own and on some BS made up by this "Myway code" vigilante.....
|
|
|
Johnnytheboy
7,379 posts
56 months
|
There was a discussion on the impeccably right-on R4 programme Thinking Aloud last week about cyclists (in a sociological context). Cue many letters read out on today's programme.
One siad something like "I am a cyclist and yes, I run red lights, cycle on the pavement etc. The difference between me and a car driver is that if he drives carelessly he puts others at risk whereas I only put myself at risk".
This case rather gives a lie to that opinion. It turns out anyone behaving carelessly can cause injury to others.
|
|
