Cyclist ignores red light, gets hit, driver is prosecuted...
Discussion
irocfan said:
here's another one...
let's be clear here THE CAR DRIVER IS IN THE WRONG!! But (and you knew that there had to be one) substitute the cyclist for a car driver and people would be saying that he was driving too fast for the conditions/he should have been driving at a speed where he was able to stop etc etc. What's sauce for the goose and all that...
I do hope that the motorist was prosecuted for being a s
t driver though!
Driving at a speed where he was able to stop?let's be clear here THE CAR DRIVER IS IN THE WRONG!! But (and you knew that there had to be one) substitute the cyclist for a car driver and people would be saying that he was driving too fast for the conditions/he should have been driving at a speed where he was able to stop etc etc. What's sauce for the goose and all that...
I do hope that the motorist was prosecuted for being a s
t driver though!Bloody hell, you clearly don't understand that one, do you?
I think you mean Driving at a speed in which you can see to stop.
Although no, you're right, cyclists would be accused of the former even though it sounds physically impossible.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Saturday 18th February 17:05
This is probably still my fave cycle clip, purely because it shows what you so often have to deal with and because it goes some way to shutting up those who say things such as "You shouldn't be driving if you can't see a cycle in your mirrors"
This is not a unique situation. You can see this countless times, every single day, on city streets across the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2UsaO9vEJs
Most get lucky, some do not and most rely on the reactions of drivers to avoid sending statistics rocketing.
I'll never, ever defend idiots in cars and trucks etc, I see many of them, but they are still a far, FAR less stupid than someone who takes chances on a bike.
Scattering pedestrians on crossings (or forcing them to freeze to the spot unsure of a riders direction) and red light jumpers especially.
They are beyond stupid imho and I only saw things begin to calm down when the police were forced to start taking action.
It still happens, of course, but there was at least for a while a fear of getting caught.
The last time I saw a crossing incident was outside a school on a crossing full of children. Rider didn't give a single fk. Straight through.
I wish I had been on that crossing and had seen him coming.
This is not a unique situation. You can see this countless times, every single day, on city streets across the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2UsaO9vEJs
Most get lucky, some do not and most rely on the reactions of drivers to avoid sending statistics rocketing.
I'll never, ever defend idiots in cars and trucks etc, I see many of them, but they are still a far, FAR less stupid than someone who takes chances on a bike.
Scattering pedestrians on crossings (or forcing them to freeze to the spot unsure of a riders direction) and red light jumpers especially.
They are beyond stupid imho and I only saw things begin to calm down when the police were forced to start taking action.
It still happens, of course, but there was at least for a while a fear of getting caught.
The last time I saw a crossing incident was outside a school on a crossing full of children. Rider didn't give a single f
k. Straight through.I wish I had been on that crossing and had seen him coming.
Digby said:
This is probably still my fave cycle clip, purely because it shows what you so often have to deal with and because it goes some way to shutting up those who say things such as "You shouldn't be driving if you can't see a cycle in your mirrors"
This is not a unique situation. You can see this countless times, every single day, on city streets across the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2UsaO9vEJs
Most get lucky, some do not and most rely on the reactions of drivers to avoid sending statistics rocketing.
I'll never, ever defend idiots in cars and trucks etc, I see many of them, but they are still a far, FAR less stupid than someone who takes chances on a bike.
Scattering pedestrians on crossings (or forcing them to freeze to the spot unsure of a riders direction) and red light jumpers especially.
They are beyond stupid imho and I only saw things begin to calm down when the police were forced to start taking action.
It still happens, of course, but there was at least for a while a fear of getting caught.
The last time I saw a crossing incident was outside a school on a crossing full of children. Rider didn't give a single fk. Straight through.
I wish I had been on that crossing and had seen him coming.
Why have you you got such a bee in your bonnet about cyclists? There isn't a logical reason. Out of the four key road user groups cyclists are the second safest so aren't you banging on and on and on about pedestrians (of which you will often be one) or motorbikers whose casualty rate is off the scale?This is not a unique situation. You can see this countless times, every single day, on city streets across the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2UsaO9vEJs
Most get lucky, some do not and most rely on the reactions of drivers to avoid sending statistics rocketing.
I'll never, ever defend idiots in cars and trucks etc, I see many of them, but they are still a far, FAR less stupid than someone who takes chances on a bike.
Scattering pedestrians on crossings (or forcing them to freeze to the spot unsure of a riders direction) and red light jumpers especially.
They are beyond stupid imho and I only saw things begin to calm down when the police were forced to start taking action.
It still happens, of course, but there was at least for a while a fear of getting caught.
The last time I saw a crossing incident was outside a school on a crossing full of children. Rider didn't give a single f
k. Straight through.I wish I had been on that crossing and had seen him coming.
It simply doesn't make sense to go on so much about cyclists risking their lives when motorcyclists do much much worse.
It can't be due to say, vocality of cyclists groups because motorists are far more vocal and even have groups such as AA RAC Brake etc who are regularly lobbying parliament.
The casualty rate of cyclists isn't so high, so why the bitter complaining?
heebeegeetee said:
Why have you you got such a bee in your bonnet about cyclists? There isn't a logical reason. Out of the four key road user groups cyclists are the second safest so aren't you banging on and on and on about pedestrians (of which you will often be one) or motorbikers whose casualty rate is off the scale?
It simply doesn't make sense to go on so much about cyclists risking their lives when motorcyclists do much much worse.
It can't be due to say, vocality of cyclists groups because motorists are far more vocal and even have groups such as AA RAC Brake etc who are regularly lobbying parliament.
The casualty rate of cyclists isn't so high, so why the bitter complaining?
Possibly because this thread is about cyclists.It simply doesn't make sense to go on so much about cyclists risking their lives when motorcyclists do much much worse.
It can't be due to say, vocality of cyclists groups because motorists are far more vocal and even have groups such as AA RAC Brake etc who are regularly lobbying parliament.
The casualty rate of cyclists isn't so high, so why the bitter complaining?
heebeegeetee said:
irocfan said:
here's another one...
let's be clear here THE CAR DRIVER IS IN THE WRONG!! But (and you knew that there had to be one) substitute the cyclist for a car driver and people would be saying that he was driving too fast for the conditions/he should have been driving at a speed where he was able to stop etc etc. What's sauce for the goose and all that...
I do hope that the motorist was prosecuted for being a st driver though!
Driving at a speed where he was able to stop?let's be clear here THE CAR DRIVER IS IN THE WRONG!! But (and you knew that there had to be one) substitute the cyclist for a car driver and people would be saying that he was driving too fast for the conditions/he should have been driving at a speed where he was able to stop etc etc. What's sauce for the goose and all that...
I do hope that the motorist was prosecuted for being a s
t driver though!Bloody hell, you clearly don't understand that one, do you?
I think you mean Driving at a speed in which you can see to stop.
Although no, you're right, cyclists would be accused of the former even though it sounds physically impossible.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Saturday 18th February 17:05
irocfan said:
here's another one...
let's be clear here THE CAR DRIVER IS IN THE WRONG!! But (and you knew that there had to be one) substitute the cyclist for a car driver and people would be saying that he was driving too fast for the conditions/he should have been driving at a speed where he was able to stop etc etc. What's sauce for the goose and all that...
Correct.let's be clear here THE CAR DRIVER IS IN THE WRONG!! But (and you knew that there had to be one) substitute the cyclist for a car driver and people would be saying that he was driving too fast for the conditions/he should have been driving at a speed where he was able to stop etc etc. What's sauce for the goose and all that...
As a child and now, as an adult, I would have been slowed right down at that point...."just in case"
No crashes on my bike, no crashes on my motorbike, a single non-fault crash in a car. That's it for me, yet I have had this happen more times than I can remember.
It has fk up written all over it, that scenario.
Car driver is the typical "didn't see you" type, rider had zero reason to crash. The rider doesn't seem to react to the car turning at any point. Perhaps they "didn't see" the car.
Both idiots, but yet again, one is the greater idiot due to the increased risk of injury should the quite predictable (in this case) happen.
Digby said:
Correct.
As a child and now, as an adult, I would have been slowed right down at that point...."just in case"
No crashes on my bike, no crashes on my motorbike, a single non-fault crash in a car. That's it for me, yet I have had this happen more times than I can remember.
It has fk up written all over it, that scenario.
Car driver is the typical "didn't see you" type, rider had zero reason to crash. The rider doesn't seem to react to the car turning at any point. Perhaps they "didn't see" the car.
Both idiots, but yet again, one is the greater idiot due to the increased risk of injury should the quite predictable (in this case) happen.
Incredible! As a child and now, as an adult, I would have been slowed right down at that point...."just in case"
No crashes on my bike, no crashes on my motorbike, a single non-fault crash in a car. That's it for me, yet I have had this happen more times than I can remember.
It has fk up written all over it, that scenario.
Car driver is the typical "didn't see you" type, rider had zero reason to crash. The rider doesn't seem to react to the car turning at any point. Perhaps they "didn't see" the car.
Both idiots, but yet again, one is the greater idiot due to the increased risk of injury should the quite predictable (in this case) happen.
Digby said:
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Incredible!
Can you tell me why this happened to the rider in the clip, yet has never happened to me despite countless exact same scenarios?I can tell you.
See if you can spot the problem:
Digby said:
irocfan said:
here's another one...
let's be clear here THE CAR DRIVER IS IN THE WRONG!! But (and you knew that there had to be one) substitute the cyclist for a car driver and people would be saying that he was driving too fast for the conditions/he should have been driving at a speed where he was able to stop etc etc. What's sauce for the goose and all that...
Correct.let's be clear here THE CAR DRIVER IS IN THE WRONG!! But (and you knew that there had to be one) substitute the cyclist for a car driver and people would be saying that he was driving too fast for the conditions/he should have been driving at a speed where he was able to stop etc etc. What's sauce for the goose and all that...
As a child and now, as an adult, I would have been slowed right down at that point...."just in case"
No crashes on my bike, no crashes on my motorbike, a single non-fault crash in a car. That's it for me, yet I have had this happen more times than I can remember.
It has fk up written all over it, that scenario.
Car driver is the typical "didn't see you" type, rider had zero reason to crash. The rider doesn't seem to react to the car turning at any point. Perhaps they "didn't see" the car.
Both idiots, but yet again, one is the greater idiot due to the increased risk of injury should the quite predictable (in this case) happen.
pablo said:
Would you slow down if you were in a car "just in case"?
As I was taught, yes. More so in my works vehicle...as I was taught.On a bike, you didn't need to teach me (even though I still had to pass a test to be allowed to ride to school) because it was so incredibly obvious to me, as it is now, that at a junction with two vehicles about to turn, they may not have seen me. That said, the 'think once, think twice, think BIKE' adverts were always on TV, too, so even though it was obvious, we were always reminded we probably wouldn't be seen. They said the exact same thing during my motorbike training.
I saved myself from such a crash the very first day I rode my motorbike and avoided probably hundreds more.
What makes me so special other than knowning I am vulnerable on a bike?
What makes one of my now retired workmates who has ridden for 60 years say the same?
There are no huge speeds involved in that clip, just a d
head in a car who typically doesn't look well enough and a rider who hasn't planned ahead. Had that idiot in the car not been there, I would have been riding far more slowly due to the car on the left, anyway.
This is basic, basic stuff.
The biggest difference here it would seem is that I am not trying to defend the d
head in the car; I'm merely stating how you can try and avoid them on a bike.Pachydermus said:
are you really that stupid? Obviously you've just been lucky and I hope you continue to be lucky but when someone does that to you there's not a whole lot you can do. I almost got around the guy who did it to me but he still clipped my back wheel.
See if you can spot the problem:
Who is more stupid? My wheel wouldn't have been clipped because, in the scenario shown above, I would have assumed I hadn't been seen and would have been almost stopped and crawling across the junction, waiting to see what was about to happen. See if you can spot the problem:
If that makes me stupid, fair enough; but I would rather be labelled as stupid, remain on my bike and cross with it intact.
Digby said:
Who is more stupid? My wheel wouldn't have been clipped because, in the scenario shown above, I would have assumed I hadn't been seen and would have been almost stopped and crawling across the junction, waiting to see what was about to happen.
If that makes me stupid, fair enough; but I would rather be labelled as stupid, remain on my bike and cross with it intact.
really? you stop and crawl past EVERY junction where a car might suddenly decide to turn in front of you? I call complete BS on that one because if nothing else you would have been rear-ended by someone not expecting you to slam on at an open junction.If that makes me stupid, fair enough; but I would rather be labelled as stupid, remain on my bike and cross with it intact.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff