Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Boshly said:
Maybe, and it's a tiny maybe, your heightened awareness and the fact thatyou have taken your headphones off, might have alerted you to his erratic driving and you give him/her a wide berth thus avoiding the problem?
More realistically, you can never eradicate all stupidity, but we can hope that legislation (that exists but maybe needs better enforcement) and more regular training and awareness will make these issues less frequent.
I think you have somewhat missed the issue here however; as we are debating wether cyclists, as well as all road users, can improve their lot by being more aware and more accountable. We are not trying to solve the extreme examples of poor road use that will always exist and pose a problem to anyone.
A better example would be whether this "magical training" as you refer to it, can, for instance, prevent cyclists from being caught in large vehicles' blind spots when making a turn. Education, awareness and accountability WILL surely make a difference in that scenario, and if I'm not mistaken doesn't that take into account quite a few of these unnecessary and regrettable London deaths?
Well, driver training never ever stopped drivers doing it, especially in London. It never failed to surprise me at how dangerously drivers behave with hgvs. More realistically, you can never eradicate all stupidity, but we can hope that legislation (that exists but maybe needs better enforcement) and more regular training and awareness will make these issues less frequent.
I think you have somewhat missed the issue here however; as we are debating wether cyclists, as well as all road users, can improve their lot by being more aware and more accountable. We are not trying to solve the extreme examples of poor road use that will always exist and pose a problem to anyone.
A better example would be whether this "magical training" as you refer to it, can, for instance, prevent cyclists from being caught in large vehicles' blind spots when making a turn. Education, awareness and accountability WILL surely make a difference in that scenario, and if I'm not mistaken doesn't that take into account quite a few of these unnecessary and regrettable London deaths?
I ride every day - I ride to the station, ride from the station in Manchester, I ride home that way as well.
This morning - for no apparent reason - a red car decided I didn't need as much space as I was using. Nothing I had done, I was cycling in a straight line on a straight road heading out to the station. I was riding to the left, not as far as some drivers seem to "think" I need, but there was plenty of space to my right. All of the other cars gave me plenty of room. The driver of the red car just decided to carry on without giving me any space.
So why am I scared of drivers? Because despite driving and cycling as safely as possible, and stopping at red lights as well as not cycling on the pavement next to the road (apart from the one bit the council have decided to make it a dual use path) I seem to always get one of those idiots who either can't see me or just doesn't give a monkeys. It's not every day, not even every week, but they do appear. I have been trained, done 10s of 1000's of miles without being hit, but still I get people telling me to get out of their lane or - as the red car driver did - just drive past me with little space. Nothing I could have legally done would have fixed that.
This morning - for no apparent reason - a red car decided I didn't need as much space as I was using. Nothing I had done, I was cycling in a straight line on a straight road heading out to the station. I was riding to the left, not as far as some drivers seem to "think" I need, but there was plenty of space to my right. All of the other cars gave me plenty of room. The driver of the red car just decided to carry on without giving me any space.
So why am I scared of drivers? Because despite driving and cycling as safely as possible, and stopping at red lights as well as not cycling on the pavement next to the road (apart from the one bit the council have decided to make it a dual use path) I seem to always get one of those idiots who either can't see me or just doesn't give a monkeys. It's not every day, not even every week, but they do appear. I have been trained, done 10s of 1000's of miles without being hit, but still I get people telling me to get out of their lane or - as the red car driver did - just drive past me with little space. Nothing I could have legally done would have fixed that.
ZX10R NIN said:
Here's another negative scenario how does magical training stop you being mowed down by someone on their phone while your jumping a Red Light 
Everyone can be negative going by your scenario everyone should be able to ride/drive what they like with no training.
I seem to recall that cyclists jumping red lights actually were a really low contributor of issues, not that its good to do it but still.Everyone can be negative going by your scenario everyone should be able to ride/drive what they like with no training.
NorfolkInClue1 said:
However for the record I spent many a happy time in the summers cycling between Amstersdam, Zwolle and Essen, so yes, I am aware of how cyclists are treated and integrated in some parts of Europe, not all, just some,but that has no bearing whatsoever with the situation in London as London is years behind in developing and intergrating such transport systems, we have to come up with and entirely different solution so you are being a complete idiot if you think any such comparison can validate your point!
So you understand the differences.NorfolkInClue1 said:
Secondly, I don't moan and whine, I challenge you to thoroughly explain how I am a part of the problem, please for all to see can you explain yourself?
NorfolkInClue1 said:
....just because you are unlicensed, untaxed
NorfolkInClue1 said:
Your problem is that you dont like being challenged, you do not like being made to think, being made to look at yourself when churning out the same old rubbish about how pathetic the plight of the cyclist is when in fact it is not.
What is pathetic is when supposedly 'professional' drivers feel that a complete solution to protect the most fragile road users means...NorfolkInClue1 said:
Everything should be changed for the cyclist
Think. Everything should be changed to save lives.NorfolkInClue1 said:
The fact that so many chose to ride bikes when commuting is a godsend, it plays its own part in trying to ease the massive issue of rush hour traffic and of course wider issue such as emissions. It takes a much braver man than me to tackle London commuter traffic no matter what you are using, but yet again you see any post that mentions anything negative towards the cyclist as a slur, an insult, a brainless "ludite" statement!
Guess you missed...Yonex said:
IMO you need to treat all cyclists as kids, the roads are full of holes and people are sometimes stupid. A moments lack of concentration is normal in every form of transport, whilst cycling, it's a bad thing.
NorfolkInClue1 said:
You mention legislation, well, come on then, explain what legislation we as HGV drivers have had to undertake in the last few years, explain the emission legislation that is ongoing, explain the complete re design of various vehicles by manufacturers in order to try to confront the fatal accident issue and when you have done all of that please feel free to list the legislation in the last few years that cyclists have had to undertake, might be a little one sided? But why let that get in the way of making some pointless some what emotive anti- driver rants on here?
'Anti-driver', of course...cyclists IMO need protecting from the traffic...Yonex said:
If it was an offence to hit a cyclist and you had to prove it wasn't your fault things would change very quickly. Since everybody here is advocating both safety and reducing congestion this new law wouldnt bother anyone, because we all give lots of room to cyclists and treat them with respect? Motorists should be made responsible in the event of an accident with a cyclist, similarly cyclists should be liable in respect of pedestrians.
It obviously annoys you that you have to maintain and improve your driving, despite being in charge of a good few kgs. Why exactly does it bother you so much, do you not think you have a greater responsibility than the average driver?NorfolkInClue1 said:
I mentioned that because you appear, along with many others to hold the naive and tragic view that only the dead cyclist is the victim, that's not true, the driver, if innocent, will live with the death for the rest of his life, it will haunt him as it does me. You appear to think that everyone else is the issue and we should all bow down, that's utter garbage.
No, not at all. The families left behind, drivers, witnesses, they all suffer. Which is why, I think, things must change. It appears to me that compassion is secondary in your mind though.NorfolkInClue1 said:
We have one side of the problem that is regulated, and continues to be. The other side is virtually unregulated and wishes to continue that way, so no matter what the regulated side does nothing will change.
All I wanted to point out was that there was a pattern of " we are doing nothing wrong" from the cycling side and as long as that continued then nothing could realistically change.
Because the logistics of policing a nation wide cycle licencing and taxation scheme would cost more than its worth. Cycling is a very basic form of transport and if it is to be allowed on the roads then the other road users need to be made responsible for accidents. An example of strict liability;All I wanted to point out was that there was a pattern of " we are doing nothing wrong" from the cycling side and as long as that continued then nothing could realistically change.
the internet said:
'Bicycle-motor vehicle accidents'
A form of strict liability has been supported in law in the Netherlands since the early 1990s for bicycle-motor vehicle accidents.[3] In a nutshell, this means that, in a collision between a car and a cyclist, the driver is deemed to be liable to pay damages and his insurer (n.b. motor vehicle insurance is mandatory in the Netherlands, while cyclist insurance is not) must pay the full damages, as long as 1) the collision was unintentional (i.e. neither party, motorist or cyclist, intentionally crashed into the other), and 2) the cyclist was not in error in some way.[3] Even if cyclist was in error, as long as the collision was still unintentional, the motorist's insurance must still pay half of the damages, though this doesn't apply if the cyclist is under 14 years of age, in which case the motorist must pay full damages for unintentional accidents with minors.[3] If it can be proved that a cyclist intended to collide with the car, then the cyclist must pay the damages (or his parents in the case of a minor.).[3]
A form of strict liability has been supported in law in the Netherlands since the early 1990s for bicycle-motor vehicle accidents.[3] In a nutshell, this means that, in a collision between a car and a cyclist, the driver is deemed to be liable to pay damages and his insurer (n.b. motor vehicle insurance is mandatory in the Netherlands, while cyclist insurance is not) must pay the full damages, as long as 1) the collision was unintentional (i.e. neither party, motorist or cyclist, intentionally crashed into the other), and 2) the cyclist was not in error in some way.[3] Even if cyclist was in error, as long as the collision was still unintentional, the motorist's insurance must still pay half of the damages, though this doesn't apply if the cyclist is under 14 years of age, in which case the motorist must pay full damages for unintentional accidents with minors.[3] If it can be proved that a cyclist intended to collide with the car, then the cyclist must pay the damages (or his parents in the case of a minor.).[3]
NorfolkInClue1 said:
I picked you out Yonex as you appear to be among the most vocal, sadly I mis judged you on the intellect side of things so carry on with the vitriol, it's water of a ducks back, I am happy with my lot, I only offer judgment on what is in front of me, what is said to me.
Time to depart as yet again, reason and the challenge of debate is pointless.
Good luck Heebee.........
You say one thing but mean another. Perhaps when you offer something more substantial than..Time to depart as yet again, reason and the challenge of debate is pointless.
Good luck Heebee.........
NorfolkInClue1 said:
ban cyclist from waiting on the left at lights
NorfolkInClue1 said:
just because you are unlicensed, untaxed
NorfolkInClue1 said:
Everything should be changed for the cyclist
..then I'll think you are sincere. Cyclists (some/most) drive cars, buses, taxis, ride motorcycles, fly planes, they also ride bicycles. Do you now think legislating the driver will not filter down the food chain? Do you think when jumping on the bike you forget all the rules that apply to you in every other mode of transport, or would it make you more focused. Tell me it doesn't work again, like it does in other parts of Europe, tell me why we have to come up with a 'whole new system', why is that exactly?
Accidents are just that and people are always going to have them. I don't understand the movement against making the cities and the wider country more cycle friendly, the benefits are fairly clear. The attitude of 'we've done enough' when it comes to training is probably half the reason as a nation we suck at things, instead of looking at the whole we consider things in total isolation from one another. I drive to work but am labelled a 'militant cyclist', I cycle therefore I am a cyclist, not a road user, a cyclist.
It'll take another generation or two to change the attitudes.
yonex said:
NorfolkInClue1 said:
We have one side of the problem that is regulated, and continues to be. The other side is virtually unregulated and wishes to continue that way, so no matter what the regulated side does nothing will change.
All I wanted to point out was that there was a pattern of " we are doing nothing wrong" from the cycling side and as long as that continued then nothing could realistically change.
Because the logistics of policing a nation wide cycle licencing and taxation scheme would cost more than its worth. Cycling is a very basic form of transport and if it is to be allowed on the roads then the other road users need to be made responsible for accidents. An example of strict liability;All I wanted to point out was that there was a pattern of " we are doing nothing wrong" from the cycling side and as long as that continued then nothing could realistically change.
yonex said:
Do you think when jumping on the bike you forget all the rules that apply to you in every other mode of transport, or would it make you more focused.
Sadly it seems that way to me, I can't remember the last time I saw a car jump a red light, go the wrong way up a one way street or drive without any lights in the dark. I see cyclists do those things all the time.Why is this, I really don't know.
Boshly said:
Maybe, and it's a tiny maybe, your heightened awareness and the fact that you have taken your headphones off, might have alerted you to his erratic driving and you give him/her a wide berth thus avoiding the problem?
So one road user drives in an erratic manner and the others have to take some form of mitigating action?.... surely you can see the irony?! the problem is there are a lot or erratic drivers around! If I compensated for the mall I would have to add 10 minutes to my journey and be riding in the verges...Look I know cycling with headphones is dumb and it frustrates me when I see people do it but the biggest issue he is still a woeful lack of driving stanadards in this Country and it isnt going to get any better with just a single one off test of 45 minutes, half of which is taken up with meaningliess manoeuveres and a theory test, once passed, completely forgotten. You pass this test once, many motorists over 35 didnt even do a theory test and this right is afforded to them, penalties aside, until the day they decide to hand in their licence? how can that be right? If the test was more frequent, it need only be a theory test, at least it gives the DSA an opportunity to promote good roadcraft.
Share the road and respect each other but remember there are dicks on bikes like there are dicks in cars and for every one of you driving enthusiasts who does want to be associated with a chav in a corsa in a shopping centre car park late at night, you have a cycling equivilent...
Finlandia said:
Sadly it seems that way to me, I can't remember the last time I saw a car jump a red light, go the wrong way up a one way street or drive without any lights in the dark. I see cyclists do those things all the time.
Why is this, I really don't know.
I see it every single day.Why is this, I really don't know.
Remember going through on solid amber is the same as going through on red in the UK, I see it a dozen times daily. I also see cars with faulty lights, bodged personalised number plates leaving it unreadable, phone users etc etc and we have no idea if those cars are road worthy, inusred and the driver licenced....
I dont see why cyclists shouldnt be allowed to ride down one way streets, normally its a space issue, the cyclist will almost by default be on the left so there would in almost all circumstances, be space for a vehicle to pass
and if there isnt space, they can hop off, let the car pass and carry on... The fact is if the law was changed and cyclists could ride down one way streets in the wrong direction but the law stated they had to yield to oncoming traffic, would that be so bad?
I dont see why cyclists shouldnt be allowed to ride down one way streets, normally its a space issue, the cyclist will almost by default be on the left so there would in almost all circumstances, be space for a vehicle to pass
and if there isnt space, they can hop off, let the car pass and carry on... The fact is if the law was changed and cyclists could ride down one way streets in the wrong direction but the law stated they had to yield to oncoming traffic, would that be so bad?
pablo said:
Remember going through on solid amber is the same as going through on red in the UK, I see it a dozen times daily.
I dont see why cyclists shouldnt be allowed to ride down one way streets, normally its a space issue, the cyclist will almost by default be on the left so there would in almost all circumstances, be space for a vehicle to pass
and if there isnt space, they can hop off, let the car pass and carry on... The fact is if the law was changed and cyclists could ride down one way streets in the wrong direction but the law stated they had to yield to oncoming traffic, would that be so bad?
In Sweden the amber means stop if safe to stop, and it lights up alone without the red, I can't honestly remember the last time I saw a car drive through on red, but I see cyclists do it everyday.I dont see why cyclists shouldnt be allowed to ride down one way streets, normally its a space issue, the cyclist will almost by default be on the left so there would in almost all circumstances, be space for a vehicle to pass
and if there isnt space, they can hop off, let the car pass and carry on... The fact is if the law was changed and cyclists could ride down one way streets in the wrong direction but the law stated they had to yield to oncoming traffic, would that be so bad?
Space is one issue with one way streets, but the biggest issue is not expecting anyone coming the opposite way down a hill at 30, putting not only the cyclist at danger but pedestrians crossing the street as well.
plasticpig said:
Strict liability goes against natural justice and promotes injustice. Proof of fault should always be a requirement otherwise you will end up with the truly incompetent being compensated for their incompetence and the innocent being convicted of a crime without any chance of defending themselves.
You don't understand the term "Strict Liability". It has no effect on criminal law and no effect on your right to defend yourself in civil cases. Go and learn about it before making up your mind.Finlandia said:
In Sweden the amber means stop if safe to stop, and it lights up alone without the red, I can't honestly remember the last time I saw a car drive through on red, but I see cyclists do it everyday.
In the UK it means "Stop unless doing so will cause an accident". Can we please stop talking about irrelevant Swedish laws and customs?Mr Will said:
Finlandia said:
In Sweden the amber means stop if safe to stop, and it lights up alone without the red, I can't honestly remember the last time I saw a car drive through on red, but I see cyclists do it everyday.
In the UK it means "Stop unless doing so will cause an accident". Can we please stop talking about irrelevant Swedish laws and customs?Finlandia said:
Sadly it seems that way to me, I can't remember the last time I saw a car jump a red light, go the wrong way up a one way street or drive without any lights in the dark. I see cyclists do those things all the time.
Why is this, I really don't know.
You keep saying this, and yet I see these things regularly.Why is this, I really don't know.
I live on a one way street. Someone drives the wrong way along it (often in reverse) about once a week. Jumping red lights - see it regularly. Cars without lights, not that often, but improper lighting all the time.
k it, I might just head down to the crossing by my office and film for a couple of minutes, buses, cars, bikes, they all jump red lights with alarming regularity.Mr Will said:
You don't understand the term "Strict Liability". It has no effect on criminal law and no effect on your right to defend yourself in civil cases. Go and learn about it before making up your mind.
Yes I do. This is an example of strict liability in operation in the UK. It means you can be convicted without any proof of criminal/civil negligence let alone actual intent. plasticpig said:
Strict liability goes against natural justice and promotes injustice. Proof of fault should always be a requirement otherwise you will end up with the truly incompetent being compensated for their incompetence and the innocent being convicted of a crime without any chance of defending themselves.
What is 'natural justice' exactly? The whole point of the liability is to protect cyclists. As drivers are also cyclists it would be strange if all of a sudden a huge increase in claims were to suddenly come to light. That would be counter productive to the average drivers insurance costs? As for innocents being convicted of a crime, it is entirely the opposite. It also doesn't promote injustice and doesn't stop a legal defence. hmmm: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vDvrkJkCdJg
Outcome: http://road.cc/content/news/152934-video-road-rage...
Outcome: http://road.cc/content/news/152934-video-road-rage...
Edited by aclivity on Monday 1st June 11:44
Mr Gear said:
Pedestrians and cyclists are not in charge of killing machines. Drivers are. More people are killed each year by pen lids than by cyclists. That's why drivers need to be regulated and cyclists don't... for all the good it seems to do.
WTF are you doing on PH? "Killing machines"? You overdramatic, crybaby VICTIM. yonex said:
What is 'natural justice' exactly? The whole point of the liability is to protect cyclists. As drivers are also cyclists it would be strange if all of a sudden a huge increase in claims were to suddenly come to light. That would be counter productive to the average drivers insurance costs? As for innocents being convicted of a crime, it is entirely the opposite. It also doesn't promote injustice and doesn't stop a legal defence.
You really don't get what strict liability means. There is no defence against strict liability Strict liability said:
Strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of mens rea). Under strict liability, there is no requirement to prove fault, negligence or intention.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff