Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
okgo said:
aclivity said:
I see it every single day.
Yep, f
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.I'm betting "alarming regularity" is actually once or twice an hour, and even then will be more running a yellow light than a red. If that alarms you, then best go home (make sure you use a cage) and hide under the duvet. It's a scary world out there, petal.
aclivity said:
hmmm: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vDvrkJkCdJg
Outcome: http://road.cc/content/news/152934-video-road-rage...
He wasn't speeding though, so must be ok Outcome: http://road.cc/content/news/152934-video-road-rage...
Edited by aclivity on Monday 1st June 11:44
There are plenty of idiots out there, regardless of mode of transport.
OpulentBob said:
Please do - a random 2 minutes at lunchtime would be good, stick it on youtube for us to see.
I'm betting "alarming regularity" is actually once or twice an hour, and even then will be more running a yellow light than a red. If that alarms you, then best go home (make sure you use a cage) and hide under the duvet. It's a scary world out there, petal.
Certainly at some junctions its less common, but there are a few that EVERY light sequence 3-5 cars jump a red, and given the sequence is about 1-2 min rotation it's a huge number of cars each day.I'm betting "alarming regularity" is actually once or twice an hour, and even then will be more running a yellow light than a red. If that alarms you, then best go home (make sure you use a cage) and hide under the duvet. It's a scary world out there, petal.
It alarms me because the morons on here that claim it never happens clearly do live under a duvet as this s
t happens often.plasticpig said:
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.
At the very least go and read the wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability ) about it before pretending to be a legal oracle
okgo said:
OpulentBob said:
Please do - a random 2 minutes at lunchtime would be good, stick it on youtube for us to see.
I'm betting "alarming regularity" is actually once or twice an hour, and even then will be more running a yellow light than a red. If that alarms you, then best go home (make sure you use a cage) and hide under the duvet. It's a scary world out there, petal.
Certainly at some junctions its less common, but there are a few that EVERY light sequence 3-5 cars jump a red, and given the sequence is about 1-2 min rotation it's a huge number of cars each day.I'm betting "alarming regularity" is actually once or twice an hour, and even then will be more running a yellow light than a red. If that alarms you, then best go home (make sure you use a cage) and hide under the duvet. It's a scary world out there, petal.
It alarms me because the morons on here that claim it never happens clearly do live under a duvet as this s
t happens often.okgo said:
OpulentBob said:
Please do - a random 2 minutes at lunchtime would be good, stick it on youtube for us to see.
I'm betting "alarming regularity" is actually once or twice an hour, and even then will be more running a yellow light than a red. If that alarms you, then best go home (make sure you use a cage) and hide under the duvet. It's a scary world out there, petal.
Certainly at some junctions its less common, but there are a few that EVERY light sequence 3-5 cars jump a red, and given the sequence is about 1-2 min rotation it's a huge number of cars each day.I'm betting "alarming regularity" is actually once or twice an hour, and even then will be more running a yellow light than a red. If that alarms you, then best go home (make sure you use a cage) and hide under the duvet. It's a scary world out there, petal.
It alarms me because the morons on here that claim it never happens clearly do live under a duvet as this s
t happens often.okgo said:
OpulentBob said:
Please do - a random 2 minutes at lunchtime would be good, stick it on youtube for us to see.
I'm betting "alarming regularity" is actually once or twice an hour, and even then will be more running a yellow light than a red. If that alarms you, then best go home (make sure you use a cage) and hide under the duvet. It's a scary world out there, petal.
Certainly at some junctions its less common, but there are a few that EVERY light sequence 3-5 cars jump a red, and given the sequence is about 1-2 min rotation it's a huge number of cars each day.I'm betting "alarming regularity" is actually once or twice an hour, and even then will be more running a yellow light than a red. If that alarms you, then best go home (make sure you use a cage) and hide under the duvet. It's a scary world out there, petal.
It alarms me because the morons on here that claim it never happens clearly do live under a duvet as this s
t happens often.Finlandia said:
As I said, the lights here go from green to amber (not amber and red) to red, amber means stop if safe to stop. I can't remember when I last saw a car drive on red, I see cyclists do it every single day.
As I say to you I ride through London daily and have done for years, I see cars do it daily.Who's opinion is going to be worth more here? I pass 60 traffic light sets each way, so I get to see first hand 120 chances for cars and bikes to jump reds, per day. With respect I think I am probably better qualified to make a judgement on this than almost anyone.
Nobody is saying bikes don't jump reds, what I am saying is that cars do it very often too, and the damage potentially caused by cars doing it obviously far outweighs that of bikes 1 ton vs 12 stone etc.
Mr Will said:
Nonsense again: In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defence of absence of fault.
At the very least go and read the wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability ) about it before pretending to be a legal oracle
That's in civil law and does not necessarily apply to all civil law. If you have actually read the example I posted earlier you will would see that strict liability law in the UK is not as straight forward as shifting the onus from proof of guilt/liability by the prosecution / plaintiff to proof of innocence by the defendant.At the very least go and read the wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability ) about it before pretending to be a legal oracle
PSGB v Storkwain said:
Medicine Act 1968 S.58 makes it an offence to give anyone any medical product without a prescription from a medical professional. Customer collects medicine from Storkwain using a fake prescription. D did not know and had no reason to suspect it was fake. Still convicted.
Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent said:
D is found collapsed in the street and is taken to a doctor who confirms he is simply drunk and asks him to leave immediately after waking up. D is spotted later still wandering the hospital so the police are called to arrest him. Police drag D into the street and arrest him for being drunk on a public highway. Appealed on the grounds he did not choose to be on the street, court stated how he got there was irrelevant, the fact he was there was enough.
Ahimoth said:
You keep saying this, and yet I see these things regularly.
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.
Severn Trent van just entered the street the wrong way, parked about 20m later. Driver on his phone.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.
Finlandia said:
As I said, the lights here go from green to amber (not amber and red) to red, amber means stop if safe to stop. I can't remember when I last saw a car drive on red, I see cyclists do it every single day.
I saw cars, vans, motorbikes, trucks, even a bin lorry (and a few cyclists) run through lights on red at the main junction on my commute to work, and that was just in the last week.You wanna come and anticipate the lights or even just go immediately on green? Good luck if its a bin lorry!
I saw some amazingly poor and dangerous driving in London today.
As I left work and was walking along the main road, I heard a commotion and turned around to see a lycra clad cyclist berating a car that had turned into the trading estate. I assumed the car had pulled in front of the cyclist thus upsetting the cyclist. After focusing on the incident, I realised one car was towing another and had pulled into the side turning and had then stopped (I assume due to the narrow road which often causes problems). This had left the car being towed at a right angle and still in the main road in the left lane. The car was being towed by a normal piece of brown rope with no reflectors or rag tied to it.
So basically the cyclist had been happily cycling along the road and the first car had seen a gap in the traffic and driven across the road and then stopped in the side road due to traffic. This had left a very difficult to spot and fairly long tow rope pulled tight across the road which had nearly sent the cyclist over his bars.
Incredibly dangerous for cyclists and I would not like to see what would happen if a car had ploughed through the rope
As I left work and was walking along the main road, I heard a commotion and turned around to see a lycra clad cyclist berating a car that had turned into the trading estate. I assumed the car had pulled in front of the cyclist thus upsetting the cyclist. After focusing on the incident, I realised one car was towing another and had pulled into the side turning and had then stopped (I assume due to the narrow road which often causes problems). This had left the car being towed at a right angle and still in the main road in the left lane. The car was being towed by a normal piece of brown rope with no reflectors or rag tied to it.
So basically the cyclist had been happily cycling along the road and the first car had seen a gap in the traffic and driven across the road and then stopped in the side road due to traffic. This had left a very difficult to spot and fairly long tow rope pulled tight across the road which had nearly sent the cyclist over his bars.
Incredibly dangerous for cyclists and I would not like to see what would happen if a car had ploughed through the rope
pablo said:
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...
I agree with your final paragraph however (assuming there is a "not" inadvertently missing from the association with chavs).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff