Bradley Wiggins in hospital after being knocked Off his bike
Discussion
roadtripboy said:
Why not better education for cyclists and motorists that they need to be aware of each other?
I totally agree. I don't know why, it's so easy to implement as well, as I mentioned integration into your driving test & vice versa when you buy a cycle.I love cycling, and I love driving so can appreciate it from both angles, and am very courteous when in my car and negotiating cyclists, but that's because when I am in my Lycra pedalling away, I know how it feels to be intimidated by a car, knowing full well any serious collision and I am in A & E.
Majority of motorists who do not cycle, have no idea of how vulnerable you can feel, & here lies the problem, I think.
Put your average motorist on a cycle, drive past them at x mph closely, not allow safe distance, no safe overtake & motorists pulling out on them, I am pretty sure they would not get on a cycle again. It's just too dangerous, I can hear it now.
Maybe now after recent incidents, the UK cycling body will put pressure on, govt for things to change.
Thinking outside the box as well, I think our road planning of signs, junctions, cycle paths etc is a lot to be desired, compared to rest of Europe.
The roads are getting forever more & more crowded, and everybody wants their right of way.
Edited by RJJ on Friday 9th November 13:11
roadtripboy said:
Can I just ask a question which I would genuinely love to know the answer to.
Why do cyclists groups always campaign for cycle facilities (which we usually don't have the space for in the UK, and which the lycra brigade usually ignore anyway) and lower speed limits (when most collisions probably happen at junctions where vehicles are travelling well under the speed limit)? Why not better education for cyclists and motorists that they need to be aware of each other?
Do they not campaign for that as well?Why do cyclists groups always campaign for cycle facilities (which we usually don't have the space for in the UK, and which the lycra brigade usually ignore anyway) and lower speed limits (when most collisions probably happen at junctions where vehicles are travelling well under the speed limit)? Why not better education for cyclists and motorists that they need to be aware of each other?
Personally I would be whole-heartedly in favour of the construction of cycle lanes alongside every single bit of road where they'll fit.
Can't we all just get along? After all, we're all - cyclist, biker, car-ist, or trucker - just some idiot, trying to get someplace.
The more I hear/read about this and the growing cries of "make the roads safer for cyclists, if BW can be in an accident then what chance do the rest of us stand" the more annoyed at the hysteria I'm getting!
We are all car drivers, and a lot of us are cyclists..... for a moment put yourself in the driving seat of the car.
You are pulling out of a petrol station onto a dual carriageway
You stop.
You look to your right and in the inside lane see a cyclist with a car behind.
You make an immediate judgement on distance and speed,
You see the bike appears to be "holding up" the cars behind,
All your past experience of driving tells you that Bikes don't go that fast (unlike motorbikes/mopeds or cars)
Therefore you assume they aren't going fast and that the distance between you and them is sufficient to pull out.
Unfortunately, it actually happens that there wasn't sufficient room and the cyclist hit the car!
So what went wrong; a simple answer - the driver wrongly assessed the distance and speed calculation.
The harder one is the how;
- Here I actually think that BW and his team could have actually contributed to the cause of the accident. When the driver saw the bike with a car behind they assumed that the bike was holding up the car, after all cars generally overtake a bike if at all possible. What the driver failed to notice was actually the car was pacing behind the bike therefore normal rules/assumptions don't apply - how was the driver to know this?
- Also the fact that it was BW pushing the pedals is another cause - we've all seen cyclists out and about, if they're roadies all lycra'd up they may go as fast as 20mph and you can tell by looking at them that they're putting the effort in to get that speed especially if they're a lone rider, I've not seen any witness statements/reports about BWs speed, but having seen a lot of pro riders out on the road... they make cycling look effortless, if they're really taking it easy they may go as slowly as 20mph.. so with a little effort they could easily be going 25/30mph we all know with a lot of effort they can reach speeds of 50/60pmh!! So the driver looks at the cyclist sees one making no efforts to peddle hard and therefore all their conditioning is that it's a slow moving bike.
We are all car drivers, and a lot of us are cyclists..... for a moment put yourself in the driving seat of the car.
You are pulling out of a petrol station onto a dual carriageway
You stop.
You look to your right and in the inside lane see a cyclist with a car behind.
You make an immediate judgement on distance and speed,
You see the bike appears to be "holding up" the cars behind,
All your past experience of driving tells you that Bikes don't go that fast (unlike motorbikes/mopeds or cars)
Therefore you assume they aren't going fast and that the distance between you and them is sufficient to pull out.
Unfortunately, it actually happens that there wasn't sufficient room and the cyclist hit the car!
So what went wrong; a simple answer - the driver wrongly assessed the distance and speed calculation.
The harder one is the how;
- Here I actually think that BW and his team could have actually contributed to the cause of the accident. When the driver saw the bike with a car behind they assumed that the bike was holding up the car, after all cars generally overtake a bike if at all possible. What the driver failed to notice was actually the car was pacing behind the bike therefore normal rules/assumptions don't apply - how was the driver to know this?
- Also the fact that it was BW pushing the pedals is another cause - we've all seen cyclists out and about, if they're roadies all lycra'd up they may go as fast as 20mph and you can tell by looking at them that they're putting the effort in to get that speed especially if they're a lone rider, I've not seen any witness statements/reports about BWs speed, but having seen a lot of pro riders out on the road... they make cycling look effortless, if they're really taking it easy they may go as slowly as 20mph.. so with a little effort they could easily be going 25/30mph we all know with a lot of effort they can reach speeds of 50/60pmh!! So the driver looks at the cyclist sees one making no efforts to peddle hard and therefore all their conditioning is that it's a slow moving bike.
Marcellus said:
The more I hear/read about this and the growing cries of "make the roads safer for cyclists, if BW can be in an accident then what chance do the rest of us stand" the more annoyed at the hysteria I'm getting!
We are all car drivers, and a lot of us are cyclists..... for a moment put yourself in the driving seat of the car.
You are pulling out of a petrol station onto a dual carriageway
You stop.
You look to your right and in the inside lane see a cyclist with a car behind.
You make an immediate judgement on distance and speed,
You see the bike appears to be "holding up" the cars behind,
All your past experience of driving tells you that Bikes don't go that fast (unlike motorbikes/mopeds or cars)
Therefore you assume they aren't going fast and that the distance between you and them is sufficient to pull out.
Unfortunately, it actually happens that there wasn't sufficient room and the cyclist hit the car!
So what went wrong; a simple answer - the driver wrongly assessed the distance and speed calculation.
The harder one is the how;
- Here I actually think that BW and his team could have actually contributed to the cause of the accident. When the driver saw the bike with a car behind they assumed that the bike was holding up the car, after all cars generally overtake a bike if at all possible. What the driver failed to notice was actually the car was pacing behind the bike therefore normal rules/assumptions don't apply - how was the driver to know this?
- Also the fact that it was BW pushing the pedals is another cause - we've all seen cyclists out and about, if they're roadies all lycra'd up they may go as fast as 20mph and you can tell by looking at them that they're putting the effort in to get that speed especially if they're a lone rider, I've not seen any witness statements/reports about BWs speed, but having seen a lot of pro riders out on the road... they make cycling look effortless, if they're really taking it easy they may go as slowly as 20mph.. so with a little effort they could easily be going 25/30mph we all know with a lot of effort they can reach speeds of 50/60pmh!! So the driver looks at the cyclist sees one making no efforts to peddle hard and therefore all their conditioning is that it's a slow moving bike.
if you are correct on any / all of this, 'how could the driver know this?' - by taking care and not making assumptions - at best your post could be reduced to 'i think the driver err-ed'We are all car drivers, and a lot of us are cyclists..... for a moment put yourself in the driving seat of the car.
You are pulling out of a petrol station onto a dual carriageway
You stop.
You look to your right and in the inside lane see a cyclist with a car behind.
You make an immediate judgement on distance and speed,
You see the bike appears to be "holding up" the cars behind,
All your past experience of driving tells you that Bikes don't go that fast (unlike motorbikes/mopeds or cars)
Therefore you assume they aren't going fast and that the distance between you and them is sufficient to pull out.
Unfortunately, it actually happens that there wasn't sufficient room and the cyclist hit the car!
So what went wrong; a simple answer - the driver wrongly assessed the distance and speed calculation.
The harder one is the how;
- Here I actually think that BW and his team could have actually contributed to the cause of the accident. When the driver saw the bike with a car behind they assumed that the bike was holding up the car, after all cars generally overtake a bike if at all possible. What the driver failed to notice was actually the car was pacing behind the bike therefore normal rules/assumptions don't apply - how was the driver to know this?
- Also the fact that it was BW pushing the pedals is another cause - we've all seen cyclists out and about, if they're roadies all lycra'd up they may go as fast as 20mph and you can tell by looking at them that they're putting the effort in to get that speed especially if they're a lone rider, I've not seen any witness statements/reports about BWs speed, but having seen a lot of pro riders out on the road... they make cycling look effortless, if they're really taking it easy they may go as slowly as 20mph.. so with a little effort they could easily be going 25/30mph we all know with a lot of effort they can reach speeds of 50/60pmh!! So the driver looks at the cyclist sees one making no efforts to peddle hard and therefore all their conditioning is that it's a slow moving bike.
Marcellus said:
The more I hear/read about this and the growing cries of "make the roads safer for cyclists, if BW can be in an accident then what chance do the rest of us stand" the more annoyed at the hysteria I'm getting!
We are all car drivers, and a lot of us are cyclists..... for a moment put yourself in the driving seat of the car.
You are pulling out of a petrol station onto a dual carriageway
You stop.
You look to your right and in the inside lane see a cyclist with a car behind.
You make an immediate judgement on distance and speed,
You see the bike appears to be "holding up" the cars behind,
All your past experience of driving tells you that Bikes don't go that fast (unlike motorbikes/mopeds or cars)
Therefore you assume they aren't going fast and that the distance between you and them is sufficient to pull out.
Unfortunately, it actually happens that there wasn't sufficient room and the cyclist hit the car!
So what went wrong; a simple answer - the driver wrongly assessed the distance and speed calculation.
The harder one is the how;
- Here I actually think that BW and his team could have actually contributed to the cause of the accident. When the driver saw the bike with a car behind they assumed that the bike was holding up the car, after all cars generally overtake a bike if at all possible. What the driver failed to notice was actually the car was pacing behind the bike therefore normal rules/assumptions don't apply - how was the driver to know this?
- Also the fact that it was BW pushing the pedals is another cause - we've all seen cyclists out and about, if they're roadies all lycra'd up they may go as fast as 20mph and you can tell by looking at them that they're putting the effort in to get that speed especially if they're a lone rider, I've not seen any witness statements/reports about BWs speed, but having seen a lot of pro riders out on the road... they make cycling look effortless, if they're really taking it easy they may go as slowly as 20mph.. so with a little effort they could easily be going 25/30mph we all know with a lot of effort they can reach speeds of 50/60pmh!! So the driver looks at the cyclist sees one making no efforts to peddle hard and therefore all their conditioning is that it's a slow moving bike.
Am I correct in thinking that what you're saying is that this accident was actually the cyclist's fault for riding so fast that it caused the driver to fail to correctly assess his speed?We are all car drivers, and a lot of us are cyclists..... for a moment put yourself in the driving seat of the car.
You are pulling out of a petrol station onto a dual carriageway
You stop.
You look to your right and in the inside lane see a cyclist with a car behind.
You make an immediate judgement on distance and speed,
You see the bike appears to be "holding up" the cars behind,
All your past experience of driving tells you that Bikes don't go that fast (unlike motorbikes/mopeds or cars)
Therefore you assume they aren't going fast and that the distance between you and them is sufficient to pull out.
Unfortunately, it actually happens that there wasn't sufficient room and the cyclist hit the car!
So what went wrong; a simple answer - the driver wrongly assessed the distance and speed calculation.
The harder one is the how;
- Here I actually think that BW and his team could have actually contributed to the cause of the accident. When the driver saw the bike with a car behind they assumed that the bike was holding up the car, after all cars generally overtake a bike if at all possible. What the driver failed to notice was actually the car was pacing behind the bike therefore normal rules/assumptions don't apply - how was the driver to know this?
- Also the fact that it was BW pushing the pedals is another cause - we've all seen cyclists out and about, if they're roadies all lycra'd up they may go as fast as 20mph and you can tell by looking at them that they're putting the effort in to get that speed especially if they're a lone rider, I've not seen any witness statements/reports about BWs speed, but having seen a lot of pro riders out on the road... they make cycling look effortless, if they're really taking it easy they may go as slowly as 20mph.. so with a little effort they could easily be going 25/30mph we all know with a lot of effort they can reach speeds of 50/60pmh!! So the driver looks at the cyclist sees one making no efforts to peddle hard and therefore all their conditioning is that it's a slow moving bike.
If Yes: No. Sorry. f
k off. You pull out on a vehicle or road user that has right of way and it's 100% your fault, no exceptions.If No: Carry on, never mind me.
Marcellus said:
The more I hear/read about this and the growing cries of "make the roads safer for cyclists, if BW can be in an accident then what chance do the rest of us stand" the more annoyed at the hysteria I'm getting!
We are all car drivers, and a lot of us are cyclists..... for a moment put yourself in the driving seat of the car.
You are pulling out of a petrol station onto a dual carriageway
You stop.
You look to your right and in the inside lane see a cyclist with a car behind.
You make an immediate judgement on distance and speed,
You see the bike appears to be "holding up" the cars behind,
All your past experience of driving tells you that Bikes don't go that fast (unlike motorbikes/mopeds or cars)
Therefore you assume they aren't going fast and that the distance between you and them is sufficient to pull out.
Unfortunately, it actually happens that there wasn't sufficient room and the cyclist hit the car!
So what went wrong; a simple answer - the driver wrongly assessed the distance and speed calculation.
The harder one is the how;
- Here I actually think that BW and his team could have actually contributed to the cause of the accident. When the driver saw the bike with a car behind they assumed that the bike was holding up the car, after all cars generally overtake a bike if at all possible. What the driver failed to notice was actually the car was pacing behind the bike therefore normal rules/assumptions don't apply - how was the driver to know this?
- Also the fact that it was BW pushing the pedals is another cause - we've all seen cyclists out and about, if they're roadies all lycra'd up they may go as fast as 20mph and you can tell by looking at them that they're putting the effort in to get that speed especially if they're a lone rider, I've not seen any witness statements/reports about BWs speed, but having seen a lot of pro riders out on the road... they make cycling look effortless, if they're really taking it easy they may go as slowly as 20mph.. so with a little effort they could easily be going 25/30mph we all know with a lot of effort they can reach speeds of 50/60pmh!! So the driver looks at the cyclist sees one making no efforts to peddle hard and therefore all their conditioning is that it's a slow moving bike.
the short version of what you have said is drivers make assumptions about speed of an approaching bike rather than actually assessing the speed.... no excuse at all.We are all car drivers, and a lot of us are cyclists..... for a moment put yourself in the driving seat of the car.
You are pulling out of a petrol station onto a dual carriageway
You stop.
You look to your right and in the inside lane see a cyclist with a car behind.
You make an immediate judgement on distance and speed,
You see the bike appears to be "holding up" the cars behind,
All your past experience of driving tells you that Bikes don't go that fast (unlike motorbikes/mopeds or cars)
Therefore you assume they aren't going fast and that the distance between you and them is sufficient to pull out.
Unfortunately, it actually happens that there wasn't sufficient room and the cyclist hit the car!
So what went wrong; a simple answer - the driver wrongly assessed the distance and speed calculation.
The harder one is the how;
- Here I actually think that BW and his team could have actually contributed to the cause of the accident. When the driver saw the bike with a car behind they assumed that the bike was holding up the car, after all cars generally overtake a bike if at all possible. What the driver failed to notice was actually the car was pacing behind the bike therefore normal rules/assumptions don't apply - how was the driver to know this?
- Also the fact that it was BW pushing the pedals is another cause - we've all seen cyclists out and about, if they're roadies all lycra'd up they may go as fast as 20mph and you can tell by looking at them that they're putting the effort in to get that speed especially if they're a lone rider, I've not seen any witness statements/reports about BWs speed, but having seen a lot of pro riders out on the road... they make cycling look effortless, if they're really taking it easy they may go as slowly as 20mph.. so with a little effort they could easily be going 25/30mph we all know with a lot of effort they can reach speeds of 50/60pmh!! So the driver looks at the cyclist sees one making no efforts to peddle hard and therefore all their conditioning is that it's a slow moving bike.
..many years ago I was out on a training bash peddling at around 22-23mph...was overtaken by a VW beetle doing about 30mph , as soon as he was about 5 foot ahead of me he braked sharply, turned left into a drive and signalled all at the same time ... I inevitably smashed into the left of his car and then ended up being thrown into a ditch while still attached to the bike.
the driver had obviously not assessed my speed approaching from behind and was so incredibly stupid to turn across right in front of me and cause a collision ... no excuse of not seeing me. f
king idiot..worst of it was when he protested his innocence "but I signalled !" .. the complete cretin just had no idea at all about how he just caused an accident.
In a lot of towns and cities couldn't some of the pavement be taken back and converted to cycle lanes? When riding in many places I go through it's hardly a bustling metropolis where people are pushing past each other.
Obviously that won't work everywhere but it would be a starting point right?
Obviously that won't work everywhere but it would be a starting point right?
Maybe I expressed myself wrongly... yes legally the driver is at fault for pulling from a minor to major road having not assessed the speed of the cyclist correctly, no question no debate, no arguement.
The point I was trying to get across was a comment about hysteria from various sections of the media/other groups that because it can happen to BW then what chance do the rest of cyclists stand!!
My thoughts being that 99% (or more) of the time given the same set of circumstances then the vehicle could have safely pulled out in front of the cyclists and both gone on their way quite happily. HOWEVER, in this instance because it was BW and his team car it actually goes against all the conditioning/experience that the driver has and therefore because it was BW (or any other pro-rider) it cannot be used as an example of how other road users treat cyclists in general...
And I say all of this as a keen cyclist regularly rides on the roads.
The point I was trying to get across was a comment about hysteria from various sections of the media/other groups that because it can happen to BW then what chance do the rest of cyclists stand!!
My thoughts being that 99% (or more) of the time given the same set of circumstances then the vehicle could have safely pulled out in front of the cyclists and both gone on their way quite happily. HOWEVER, in this instance because it was BW and his team car it actually goes against all the conditioning/experience that the driver has and therefore because it was BW (or any other pro-rider) it cannot be used as an example of how other road users treat cyclists in general...
And I say all of this as a keen cyclist regularly rides on the roads.
London424 said:
In a lot of towns and cities couldn't some of the pavement be taken back and converted to cycle lanes? When riding in many places I go through it's hardly a bustling metropolis where people are pushing past each other.
Obviously that won't work everywhere but it would be a starting point right?
Got to germany and this is exactly how it works (pretty well), with pedestrians on the inside of the pavement and the cyclists (and idiot Englishmen Obviously that won't work everywhere but it would be a starting point right?
) on the portion closest to the road.I started cycling in an attempt to get fitter (laughably) and tried to cycle to work a couple of times. I stopped and bought a MTB as I didnt feel safe cycling on the road.
I fully expect to be told to man up but fk that, Im not getting run over as that wouldnt help my fitness much would it!
Cyclists arent perfect though. Admittedly not related to this case but I regularly see them running red lights!
I fully expect to be told to man up but f
k that, Im not getting run over as that wouldnt help my fitness much would it! Cyclists arent perfect though. Admittedly not related to this case but I regularly see them running red lights!
Marcellus said:
The point I was trying to get across was a comment about hysteria from various sections of the media/other groups that because it can happen to BW then what chance do the rest of cyclists stand!!
Is there really hysteria? I confess to not viewing the majority of newspapers so may have missed out on such hysteria but on the tv and radio this incident has been dealt with quite calmly and responsibly as one of road safety with the added frisson of celebrity to make the story a story, and is already yesterday's news anyway.CommanderJameson said:
Marcellus said:
The more I hear/read about this and the growing cries of "make the roads safer for cyclists, if BW can be in an accident then what chance do the rest of us stand" the more annoyed at the hysteria I'm getting!
We are all car drivers, and a lot of us are cyclists..... for a moment put yourself in the driving seat of the car.
You are pulling out of a petrol station onto a dual carriageway
You stop.
You look to your right and in the inside lane see a cyclist with a car behind.
You make an immediate judgement on distance and speed,
You see the bike appears to be "holding up" the cars behind,
All your past experience of driving tells you that Bikes don't go that fast (unlike motorbikes/mopeds or cars)
Therefore you assume they aren't going fast and that the distance between you and them is sufficient to pull out.
Unfortunately, it actually happens that there wasn't sufficient room and the cyclist hit the car!
So what went wrong; a simple answer - the driver wrongly assessed the distance and speed calculation.
The harder one is the how;
- Here I actually think that BW and his team could have actually contributed to the cause of the accident. When the driver saw the bike with a car behind they assumed that the bike was holding up the car, after all cars generally overtake a bike if at all possible. What the driver failed to notice was actually the car was pacing behind the bike therefore normal rules/assumptions don't apply - how was the driver to know this?
- Also the fact that it was BW pushing the pedals is another cause - we've all seen cyclists out and about, if they're roadies all lycra'd up they may go as fast as 20mph and you can tell by looking at them that they're putting the effort in to get that speed especially if they're a lone rider, I've not seen any witness statements/reports about BWs speed, but having seen a lot of pro riders out on the road... they make cycling look effortless, if they're really taking it easy they may go as slowly as 20mph.. so with a little effort they could easily be going 25/30mph we all know with a lot of effort they can reach speeds of 50/60pmh!! So the driver looks at the cyclist sees one making no efforts to peddle hard and therefore all their conditioning is that it's a slow moving bike.
Am I correct in thinking that what you're saying is that this accident was actually the cyclist's fault for riding so fast that it caused the driver to fail to correctly assess his speed?We are all car drivers, and a lot of us are cyclists..... for a moment put yourself in the driving seat of the car.
You are pulling out of a petrol station onto a dual carriageway
You stop.
You look to your right and in the inside lane see a cyclist with a car behind.
You make an immediate judgement on distance and speed,
You see the bike appears to be "holding up" the cars behind,
All your past experience of driving tells you that Bikes don't go that fast (unlike motorbikes/mopeds or cars)
Therefore you assume they aren't going fast and that the distance between you and them is sufficient to pull out.
Unfortunately, it actually happens that there wasn't sufficient room and the cyclist hit the car!
So what went wrong; a simple answer - the driver wrongly assessed the distance and speed calculation.
The harder one is the how;
- Here I actually think that BW and his team could have actually contributed to the cause of the accident. When the driver saw the bike with a car behind they assumed that the bike was holding up the car, after all cars generally overtake a bike if at all possible. What the driver failed to notice was actually the car was pacing behind the bike therefore normal rules/assumptions don't apply - how was the driver to know this?
- Also the fact that it was BW pushing the pedals is another cause - we've all seen cyclists out and about, if they're roadies all lycra'd up they may go as fast as 20mph and you can tell by looking at them that they're putting the effort in to get that speed especially if they're a lone rider, I've not seen any witness statements/reports about BWs speed, but having seen a lot of pro riders out on the road... they make cycling look effortless, if they're really taking it easy they may go as slowly as 20mph.. so with a little effort they could easily be going 25/30mph we all know with a lot of effort they can reach speeds of 50/60pmh!! So the driver looks at the cyclist sees one making no efforts to peddle hard and therefore all their conditioning is that it's a slow moving bike.
If Yes: No. Sorry. f
k off. You pull out on a vehicle or road user that has right of way and it's 100% your fault, no exceptions.If No: Carry on, never mind me.
As my driving instructor always used to say, 'cyclists are always faster than everyone thinks, even cyclists.'
Twincam16 said:
CommanderJameson said:
Marcellus said:
The more I hear/read about this and the growing cries of "make the roads safer for cyclists, if BW can be in an accident then what chance do the rest of us stand" the more annoyed at the hysteria I'm getting!
We are all car drivers, and a lot of us are cyclists..... for a moment put yourself in the driving seat of the car.
You are pulling out of a petrol station onto a dual carriageway
You stop.
You look to your right and in the inside lane see a cyclist with a car behind.
You make an immediate judgement on distance and speed,
You see the bike appears to be "holding up" the cars behind,
All your past experience of driving tells you that Bikes don't go that fast (unlike motorbikes/mopeds or cars)
Therefore you assume they aren't going fast and that the distance between you and them is sufficient to pull out.
Unfortunately, it actually happens that there wasn't sufficient room and the cyclist hit the car!
So what went wrong; a simple answer - the driver wrongly assessed the distance and speed calculation.
The harder one is the how;
- Here I actually think that BW and his team could have actually contributed to the cause of the accident. When the driver saw the bike with a car behind they assumed that the bike was holding up the car, after all cars generally overtake a bike if at all possible. What the driver failed to notice was actually the car was pacing behind the bike therefore normal rules/assumptions don't apply - how was the driver to know this?
- Also the fact that it was BW pushing the pedals is another cause - we've all seen cyclists out and about, if they're roadies all lycra'd up they may go as fast as 20mph and you can tell by looking at them that they're putting the effort in to get that speed especially if they're a lone rider, I've not seen any witness statements/reports about BWs speed, but having seen a lot of pro riders out on the road... they make cycling look effortless, if they're really taking it easy they may go as slowly as 20mph.. so with a little effort they could easily be going 25/30mph we all know with a lot of effort they can reach speeds of 50/60pmh!! So the driver looks at the cyclist sees one making no efforts to peddle hard and therefore all their conditioning is that it's a slow moving bike.
Am I correct in thinking that what you're saying is that this accident was actually the cyclist's fault for riding so fast that it caused the driver to fail to correctly assess his speed?We are all car drivers, and a lot of us are cyclists..... for a moment put yourself in the driving seat of the car.
You are pulling out of a petrol station onto a dual carriageway
You stop.
You look to your right and in the inside lane see a cyclist with a car behind.
You make an immediate judgement on distance and speed,
You see the bike appears to be "holding up" the cars behind,
All your past experience of driving tells you that Bikes don't go that fast (unlike motorbikes/mopeds or cars)
Therefore you assume they aren't going fast and that the distance between you and them is sufficient to pull out.
Unfortunately, it actually happens that there wasn't sufficient room and the cyclist hit the car!
So what went wrong; a simple answer - the driver wrongly assessed the distance and speed calculation.
The harder one is the how;
- Here I actually think that BW and his team could have actually contributed to the cause of the accident. When the driver saw the bike with a car behind they assumed that the bike was holding up the car, after all cars generally overtake a bike if at all possible. What the driver failed to notice was actually the car was pacing behind the bike therefore normal rules/assumptions don't apply - how was the driver to know this?
- Also the fact that it was BW pushing the pedals is another cause - we've all seen cyclists out and about, if they're roadies all lycra'd up they may go as fast as 20mph and you can tell by looking at them that they're putting the effort in to get that speed especially if they're a lone rider, I've not seen any witness statements/reports about BWs speed, but having seen a lot of pro riders out on the road... they make cycling look effortless, if they're really taking it easy they may go as slowly as 20mph.. so with a little effort they could easily be going 25/30mph we all know with a lot of effort they can reach speeds of 50/60pmh!! So the driver looks at the cyclist sees one making no efforts to peddle hard and therefore all their conditioning is that it's a slow moving bike.
If Yes: No. Sorry. f
k off. You pull out on a vehicle or road user that has right of way and it's 100% your fault, no exceptions.If No: Carry on, never mind me.
As my driving instructor always used to say, 'cyclists are always faster than everyone thinks, even cyclists.'
There was one cause - the van was being piloted by a s
t driver.CommanderJameson said:
The bolded bits are what made me react to this and think that it was more of the usual PH "blame the victim" ballhaux.
I will excuse your massive inaccurate assumption and let you on your merry way.It appears as though I'm alone in my thoughts that it is not really right/accurate to use BWs accident as another opportunity for certain quarters to raise the subject of the general attitude toward and safety of cyclists by other road users.
Marcellus said:
I will excuse your massive inaccurate assumption and let you on your merry way.
It appears as though I'm alone in my thoughts that it is not really right/accurate to use BWs accident as another opportunity for certain quarters to raise the subject of the general attitude toward and safety of cyclists by other road users.
Well, you might be right that this specific accident might under forensic examination prove not be the best possible example to use as a case study to promote a specific agenda by a specific group (but you might not be right in that matter and it is unlikely your or my understanding of the specific incident wil ever full enough to know for certain) but to be honest I think it's an example with enough draw to highlight a bit of focus on motorists being just that little bit more careful around cyclists and other non-car road users. I don't see a big problem here at all.It appears as though I'm alone in my thoughts that it is not really right/accurate to use BWs accident as another opportunity for certain quarters to raise the subject of the general attitude toward and safety of cyclists by other road users.
Besides, almost every single road user today will make decisions on the road with this unique case not having any noticeable bearing on those decisions they make. Even if some people might want to be slightly put out that this case might be being misused (in their own opinion) by sinister bodies (in their opinion) that should bring at least some comfort.
richtea78 said:
I started cycling in an attempt to get fitter (laughably) and tried to cycle to work a couple of times. I stopped and bought a MTB as I didnt feel safe cycling on the road.
I fully expect to be told to man up but fk that, Im not getting run over as that wouldnt help my fitness much would it!
Cyclists arent perfect though. Admittedly not related to this case but I regularly see them running red lights!
I'm probably being a raving bike loony so, so I apologise for that. But I think 'should I man up' is probably the wrong question.I fully expect to be told to man up but f
k that, Im not getting run over as that wouldnt help my fitness much would it! Cyclists arent perfect though. Admittedly not related to this case but I regularly see them running red lights!
You have a right to get somewhere by bike and not arrive squashed - as you should in any sane society: it's a practical way of getting around that presents minimal harm to others. The job of the state is to protect that right.
Unless your fear is unreasonable (and the number of people I know with the same attitude - even most cyclists I know express reservations about certain places and times - suggest it isn't), then the only conclusion is the state has failed to protect that right.
The question is: why aren't you angry about this?
We're constantly told about the evils of excess car use and punished for driving, yet one of the most common reasons for taking a car instead of a bike is the number of other cars.
That... is not sane.
Marcellus said:
CommanderJameson said:
The bolded bits are what made me react to this and think that it was more of the usual PH "blame the victim" ballhaux.
I will excuse your massive inaccurate assumption and let you on your merry way.It appears as though I'm alone in my thoughts that it is not really right/accurate to use BWs accident as another opportunity for certain quarters to raise the subject of the general attitude toward and safety of cyclists by other road users.
Cars are massive w
kers towards cyclists. Cyclists are indeed also massive wkers towards cars. These things are not really up for debate.However, the power balance is so massively skewed in the car's favour that it behoves cars to take extra care to avoid crashing into bikes, despite the equivalence in w
kerosity.It's a little more sane than the preposterousnous of parents not letting their kids play in the local parks because of the perceived vast increase in paedos since they were younger. Or "having" to hurredly (inevitably) drive their kids the mile to school because of the dangers of crossing roads then parallel parking their 4X4s with inherent visibility issues while distracted by their kids close to junctions or at other unsuitable places then disembarking their loved ones into the road. Or driving to the out of town supermarket for a few pints of milk and a packet of fags cos the 7-11 on the corner is 30p dearer.
Insanity everywhere these days.
Insanity everywhere these days.
CommanderJameson said:
How is it massively inaccurate? Genuinely confused.
Massively innaccurate because you assumed I was spouting; CommanderJameson said:
the usual PH "blame the victim" ballhaux
when that was not my intention, as I said in the 1st line of my post my comments were aimed at those choosing to use this accident as support of their cause and drawing paralells between Jo public on a bike and BW.But as I have acknowledged I am alone in this view here so fair enough. :zip:
Marcellus said:
when that was not my intention, as I said in the 1st line of my post my comments were aimed at those choosing to use this accident as support of their cause and drawing paralells between Jo public on a bike and BW.
But as I have acknowledged I am alone in this view here so fair enough. :zip:
Whether it was your intention or not is not what I'm querying; I just pointed out that, irrespective of what you intended, what you did was blame Wiggins for the accident that emphatically was not caused by him. Ergo, "blame the victim". I think such a point of view is bollaux, so I said so.But as I have acknowledged I am alone in this view here so fair enough. :zip:
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff