Cyclists! Why do they ride in the middle of the road?

[will_]

Mr SFJ said:

will_ said:

What?

You asked for an example of a situation where a vehicle passing a green light that is in collision with a vehicle jumping a red light is held partly liable.

It's a court judgment which evidences exactly that. Here is the full judgment:
http://www.lawtel.com/MyLawtel/FullText/AC9300999Q...

Do you think I've just made it up?

I'm genuinely baffled how you don't consider that to be evidence that supports my position.

Now, will you answer my questions and stop side-stepping them?

I want to see this data, This Lawtel crap is asking me to sign up because I cannot see your uploads. Preparing for this were we?

So now you've seen the requested example, can you answer my questions (not, of course, that the absense of such an example should have stopped you from answering them in the first place.....)

Edited by will_ on Tuesday 22 April 11:20

[superkartracer]

Another good reason to give cyclists more room is WIND, gusts can blow you around and if someone passes 6" from your head it don't give much scope for movement should a 40 mph gust catch you.. hence in windy conditions try and allow a little more space when on the bike.

Edited by superkartracer on Tuesday 22 April 11:24

[anonymous-user]

There is bad though. On the way to a race yesterday I passed a couple of cyclists on the other side of the road who were absolutely oblivious to the cars behind them. The guy on the outside was weaving around whilst in conversation and paying little attention to the road. I would expect that on a trail but not on the roads. Not a good advert TBH.

[superkartracer]

GarryDK said:

73mark said:

I pay my tax,IN,road tax,fishing rod tax.Why do cyclist get away with not paying tax.That's bullst!

Edited by 73mark on Wednesday 16th April 15:22

Wow, just wow.

It's scary i have to share the road with such people ( car or bike ). Fishing rod tax

[lufbramatt]

Article in the OP is pretty good. Primary position can be very useful for asserting your postion on the road when needed, in fact worst two incidents of "road rage" directed at me were when I hadn't taken up primary position, the car drivers had tried to squeeze past me but run out of space- resulting in a emergency stop and a load of abuse being directed at me for getting in the way. If I had been further out, the driver would have waited to overtake, situation becomes safer for everyone.

No need to be in the middle all the time, but very useful at traffic lights and near traffic islands. Most competent cyclists can keep pace with urban traffic anyway so no-one is being held up.

[TheFungle]

I had a lorry overtake me on a blind bend on Monday, the oncoming car had to swerve to avoid and the lorry had to cut VERY close in front of me, I'd estimate there was less than 1ft to him hitting me.

I really can't fathom why a driver would place themselves in a position where potentially they could kill fellow road users.

Worst of all he pulled into a farm 500m up the road!

When I asked him 'why did you choose to almost kill me?' his first response was 'why are you on the road?'.

The mind boggles.

[j4ckos mate]

I saw a pot hole yesterday near the airport, and it had a traffic cone lying on its side it it, and you could barely see it

[superkartracer]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/the-northerner/...

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/cycli...

Last few days.... so please give them some space.

[Mr SFJ]

will_ said:

Mr SFJ said:

will_ said:

What?

You asked for an example of a situation where a vehicle passing a green light that is in collision with a vehicle jumping a red light is held partly liable.

It's a court judgment which evidences exactly that. Here is the full judgment:
http://www.lawtel.com/MyLawtel/FullText/AC9300999Q...

Do you think I've just made it up?

I'm genuinely baffled how you don't consider that to be evidence that supports my position.

Now, will you answer my questions and stop side-stepping them?

I want to see this data, This Lawtel crap is asking me to sign up because I cannot see your uploads. Preparing for this were we?

So now you've seen the requested example, can you answer my questions (not, of course, that the absense of such an example should have stopped you from answering them in the first place.....)

Edited by will_ on Tuesday 22 April 11:20

Any arguement you have is utterly invalid until you prove the statement to me. Sending me a link to some stty lawtel website that asks me to sign up is not proof. If it's an article, find the publish, or take a screenshot of the document.

I asked for the justification, and once I've seen that, I will answer any questions.

[will_]

Mr SFJ said:

Any arguement you have is utterly invalid until you prove the statement to me. Sending me a link to some stty lawtel website that asks me to sign up is not proof. If it's an article, find the publish, or take a screenshot of the document.

I asked for the justification, and once I've seen that, I will answer any questions.

FFS, you mean like this one?

will_ said:

The case is MALASI v ATTMED (2011), there are plenty of summaries available via google.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40...

You obviously don't need this in order to answer the questions - the two are wholly unconnected.

[Mr SFJ]

will_ said:

You obviously don't need this in order to answer the questions - the two are wholly unconnected.

The driver was speeding, so yes he would've also been tried.

If he wasn't and the cyclist still hit him, cyclists fault. So as I said, car drivers should not be held liable if some uneducated fkwit decides not to stop for red lights.

You failed to mention that in this example he was speeding.

[TheGreatSoprendo]

Mr SFJ said:

You failed to mention that in this example he was speeding.

In fairness:

will_ said:

http://www.lawtel.com/MyLawtel/Documents/AC9300999

In that case, whilst the cyclist ran the red light, the taxi was speeding. Blame was apportioned 80% to the cyclist. But the taxi driver had to take 20% of the blame for the accident, even though his traffic signal was green and the cyclist shouldn't have been there regardless of the speed of the taxi.

[will_]

Mr SFJ said:

will_ said:

You obviously don't need this in order to answer the questions - the two are wholly unconnected.

The driver was speeding, so yes he would've also been tried.

If he wasn't and the cyclist still hit him, cyclists fault. So as I said, car drivers should not be held liable if some uneducated fkwit decides not to stop for red lights.

You failed to mention that in this example he was speeding.

Wrong, as already identified.

Anyway, as I said - "Sometimes drivers passing through a green light can be held partially responsible even if they hit someone running a red."

You didn't believe me, so I've provided you with an example where precisely this happened.

The driver doesn't need to have been speeding to be liable - he may not have been paying sufficient attention, on the phone etc etc. A green light is not a get out of jail free card. That is the point. So even if, as you so charmingly put it, some "uneducated fkwit" decides not to stop for red lights, you can't just run them over. Sorry about that.

I presume that you'll once again duck my questions about your driving.

[anonymous-user]

Will, do you actually drive a car, or are you 100% pedal powered?

Genuine question - you don't list a garage (your prerogative, obv).

[will_]

OpulentBob said:

Will, do you actually drive a car, or are you 100% pedal powered?

Genuine question - you don't list a garage (your prerogative, obv).

Of course! Why do you think I'm on PH?

I only use a bike because it is the best way for me to get to work.

Having done so, however, I find the general attitude to cyclists to be very poor on this forum - whereas, in fact, there is no reason why that should be the case. Indeed there are a great number of petrolheads who also love cycling - from our own Garlick to many F1 drivers.

I am certainly a better, more aware, more considerate, safer driver having understood what it's like to be on a bike. The result of this is that I have the ability to provide some balance to some of the ranty, hateful anti-cyclists that often post - hence why I often "contribute" to such threads.

I love driving and take great pride in doing it as well as I can - which is why I roll my eyes at supposed "enthusiasts" on a site like PH who evidence their incompetence via their apparent inability properly to deal with cyclists who usually provide no particular difficulty on the roads.

Despite what you and others may think my foot is firmly in the driving camp - but, on here, the "cycling community" (of which I am sometimes a member) often gets lambasted, unjustifiably in my opinion (and based on pretty much any evidence you can get your hands on). This is usually based on ignorance, or unsupportable prejudice and irrationality. What is most depressing, however, is at a Sunday Service I can attend and be with like-minded people, yet on my ride to work some of those same people will consider it perfectly acceptable to drive poorly around me because "#bloodycyclists".

Whether someone is a moron or not does not depend on their mode of transport.

[Mr SFJ]

will_ said:

Wrong, as already identified.

Anyway, as I said - "Sometimes drivers passing through a green light can be held partially responsible even if they hit someone running a red."

You didn't believe me, so I've provided you with an example where precisely this happened.

The driver doesn't need to have been speeding to be liable - he may not have been paying sufficient attention, on the phone etc etc. A green light is not a get out of jail free card. That is the point. So even if, as you so charmingly put it, some "uneducated fkwit" decides not to stop for red lights, you can't just run them over. Sorry about that.

I presume that you'll once again duck my questions about your driving.

So you're trying to say that he would still have been done if he was adhering to the speed limit? I find that highly in-plausible.

All i'm going to say is out of a red light-running cyclist and car driver going across a green light at the speed limit and the cyclist plows into said car driver, the car driver is somehow liable? Who made the illegal move? I wonder....

[will_]

Mr SFJ said:

So you're trying to say that he would still have been done if he was adhering to the speed limit? I find that highly in-plausible.

All i'm going to say is out of a red light-running cyclist and car driver going across a green light at the speed limit and the cyclist plows into said car driver, the car driver is somehow liable? Who made the illegal move? I wonder....

I've already answered this question.....

[Bedford Rascal]

Mr SFJ said:

in-plausible

We really must tighten up the entrance exams.

[Mr Gear]

Bedford Rascal said:

Mr SFJ said:

in-plausible

We really must tighten up the entrance exams.

A standard idiot-test would help the quality of Pistonheads content immensely.

[Mr Gear]

OK, serious point here… there was some talk on a newspaper article I read recently about traffic lights getting longer pedestrian phases to help elderly people cross the road. But one commenter rightly said it was unnecessary because “what sort of a human being would run over an old person just because they got a green light?”

Well, it looks like we have found out what sort of person would do that! And it's this sort of mentality that means all motorists must be treated like idiots.