Do you 'engage' with cyclists?
Discussion
johnxjsc1985 said:
Rich_W said:
If you didn't want people to know you are a florist. Why would you put it on your profile Darling? x
I still think most motorists do not understand the damage they will do if they hit a cyclist.The notions of compound fractures, brain tissue and viscera spread across the road or up the side of their car, ambulances and wheelchairs never enter their thoughts.
IroningMan said:
I agree. Mostly I don't believe they think anything beyond 'I'll show him who's boss.' But if they think at all, it's to imagine some kind of Mr Bean comedy tumble, followed by the hapless cyclist getting up to shake an impotent fist at the rapidly receding, wholly vindicated driver, before wheeling a now square-wheeled bike home.
The notions of compound fractures, brain tissue and viscera spread across the road or up the side of their car, ambulances and wheelchairs never enter their thoughts.
The cyclist may be the biggest aThe notions of compound fractures, brain tissue and viscera spread across the road or up the side of their car, ambulances and wheelchairs never enter their thoughts.
hole to have ever graced this earth but would any decent human being want the death of another human being just because of being impatientjohnxjsc1985 said:
IroningMan said:
I agree. Mostly I don't believe they think anything beyond 'I'll show him who's boss.' But if they think at all, it's to imagine some kind of Mr Bean comedy tumble, followed by the hapless cyclist getting up to shake an impotent fist at the rapidly receding, wholly vindicated driver, before wheeling a now square-wheeled bike home.
The notions of compound fractures, brain tissue and viscera spread across the road or up the side of their car, ambulances and wheelchairs never enter their thoughts.
The cyclist may be the biggest aThe notions of compound fractures, brain tissue and viscera spread across the road or up the side of their car, ambulances and wheelchairs never enter their thoughts.
hole to have ever graced this earth but would any decent human being want the death of another human being just because of being impatienthttp://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news...
gazza285 said:
A 23 year old Lance Corp kills a 70 year old man because he lost his temper and now his own life will never be the same again.All because he had a hissy fit.heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
Out of curiosity, what would the outcome be if the bike got caught in a car, think handlebar or so, damaging the car and possibly hurting the cyclist when coming off the bike?
A grazed knee?Finlandia said:
heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
Out of curiosity, what would the outcome be if the bike got caught in a car, think handlebar or so, damaging the car and possibly hurting the cyclist when coming off the bike?
A grazed knee?Take the opposite situation, motorist runs into a cyclist that is stationary in traffic, the motorist is at fault. He has insurance but his insurer don't own a reincarnation machine. Who brings the cyclist back to life?
Mave said:
Not having insurance doesn't mean the cyclist isn't liable. Just like any other situation in life where there is no compulsory insurance, you can take the third party to the small claims court.
So if the cyclist doesn't have the means to pay for the damage caused, you're out of luck.Finlandia said:
So if the cyclist doesn't have the means to pay for the damage caused, you're out of luck.
Just as in any other situation not covered by another party's motor or household insurance - such as having someone break into your car, for example, or push you over in the street.Finlandia said:
Mave said:
Not having insurance doesn't mean the cyclist isn't liable. Just like any other situation in life where there is no compulsory insurance, you can take the third party to the small claims court.
So if the cyclist doesn't have the means to pay for the damage caused, you're out of luck.oyster said:
yonex said:
carlove said:
Why would you not get your daughter a helmet? It's like having your daughter in the car and saying "you don't need a seatbelt", probably with more swearing in your case though.
It's actually not the same at all. I choose to wear one but that is still what it is, a choice not mandatory. I take it you have never ridden a bike at any point in your life, you don't seem to have the slightest clue about the subject. It's not rocket science.Most injuries to adults from riding a bike are caused by impact with other vehicles, and as a result, most injuries are not head related.
For children it's the opposite. They are injured more often when they fall off their bikes, and are more likely to impact their head. Helmets are a much more important safety feature for children than adults.
I have ridden a bike, spent about 5 years cycling to work. My daughter has a bicycle she also has a helmet. Maybe it doesn't make massive difference in an accident but it helps, kind of like a seatbelt.
Please tell me you're not skimping about £5 for the added safety of your daughter to prove a point?
None of this is directed to oyster, couldn't be bothered looking for the original post
Edited by carlove on Wednesday 4th March 00:42
carlove said:
I missed this.
I have ridden a bike, spent about 5 years cycling to work. My daughter has a bicycle she also has a helmet. Maybe it doesn't make massive difference in an accident but it helps, kind of like a seatbelt.
The seatbelt analogy isn't a good one. There is lots of compelling evidence about the efficacy of seatbelts. There isn't for helmets.I have ridden a bike, spent about 5 years cycling to work. My daughter has a bicycle she also has a helmet. Maybe it doesn't make massive difference in an accident but it helps, kind of like a seatbelt.
Tax consumer debt. 
.
All modern road problems solved instantly.
And why do so many people who pay a little bit of tax on their incomes seem to think that makes them a net contributor to the tax system?
Society's problem is not a handful of militant CND type loons but the army of debt monkeys who truly believe they are special and more important than all around them and that paying a bit of tax in the window of their working career seems to mean that they are net contributors to the system. It's those people who are the problem because there are millions of them.
. All modern road problems solved instantly.
And why do so many people who pay a little bit of tax on their incomes seem to think that makes them a net contributor to the tax system?
Society's problem is not a handful of militant CND type loons but the army of debt monkeys who truly believe they are special and more important than all around them and that paying a bit of tax in the window of their working career seems to mean that they are net contributors to the system. It's those people who are the problem because there are millions of them.
asgoo said:
People don't wear helmets to protect themselves from car accidents. They wear them to stop their head cracking open when they fall off.
Not true. When you "fall off" the first part of your body to come into contact with the floor will be an extremity. Your feet or hands. That's why I wear gloves and safety shoes. I wear a helmet because I need to protect my head if/when I get hit. When I was knocked off a couple of years ago my helmet was smashed, shoulder dislocated and ribs separated from my sternum ripping my intercostal muscles (the muscles inside my rib cage). If my helmet wasn't smashed my head would have been and the hit and run driver would be in prison for causing death by careless/dangerous driving instead of disqualified for careless driving and leaving the scene of a collision.
Finlandia said:
Well yes, and maybe more than that too, say a few days in hospital and a dented car. I'm interested in the legal aspect of it, cyclist runs into a car that is stationary in traffic, the cyclist is at fault, but doesn't have insurance, so who pays?
Exactly the same people who pays now, the same people who pay for the countless damage done to cars by cars that is not reported. I work in a garage, we are carrying out parking damage repairs *all the time*. Our last one went out two days ago, at a cost of £192. Look down the sides of almost any car and you'll see car door damage, almost all of which will be borne by the damaged car owner. The sides of my wife's car is battered and scratched, because parking is tight where she works. I don't like my wife's car and would like to replace it, but there is no point buying anything nice because it *will* be damaged by other car users who will not report the damage they do.
You know all this Finlandia, you don't know need me to tell you how the world works, so I just cannot think why you think that any material material difference will be made by spending millions/billions by registering and licencing cyclists and having them carry an identification number. Every single authority who has tried this has found themselves in a worse position that than they were in before. I am sure you know this.
By licencing cyclists you'll have fewer 100kg machines doing damage and more 2 tonne machines doing damage. That's all you'll achieve.
heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
Well yes, and maybe more than that too, say a few days in hospital and a dented car. I'm interested in the legal aspect of it, cyclist runs into a car that is stationary in traffic, the cyclist is at fault, but doesn't have insurance, so who pays?
Exactly the same people who pays now, the same people who pay for the countless damage done to cars by cars that is not reported. I work in a garage, we are carrying out parking damage repairs *all the time*. Our last one went out two days ago, at a cost of £192. Look down the sides of almost any car and you'll see car door damage, almost all of which will be borne by the damaged car owner. The sides of my wife's car is battered and scratched, because parking is tight where she works. I don't like my wife's car and would like to replace it, but there is no point buying anything nice because it *will* be damaged by other car users who will not report the damage they do.
You know all this Finlandia, you don't know need me to tell you how the world works, so I just cannot think why you think that any material material difference will be made by spending millions/billions by registering and licencing cyclists and having them carry an identification number. Every single authority who has tried this has found themselves in a worse position that than they were in before. I am sure you know this.
By licencing cyclists you'll have fewer 100kg machines doing damage and more 2 tonne machines doing damage. That's all you'll achieve.
Ahimoth said:
JagXJR said:
Cyclist should ride legally within the law. End off.
I usually take "End of" to be the debating tactic of an idiot. "End off" though...heebeegeetee said:
JagXJR said:
Cyclist should ride legally within the law. End off.
Shouldn't motorists do likewise? I mean, they/we may not kill and injure hundreds of thousand each and every year if they drove within the law. Shouldn't this bother you far more?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff