SUV driver attempts to kill cyclist, smashes into salon
Discussion
Johnnytheboy said:
JQ said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Hol said:
There is a significant difference between a stupid motorist who zips through a red light, just as it changes, and..
A cyclist who does not stop for a red light, that has been that way (RED) for a number of seconds before they reached the line.
Yet, we always see those two scenarios being directly compared, as some form of justification for a cycle running a light.
Exactly. Two different things.A cyclist who does not stop for a red light, that has been that way (RED) for a number of seconds before they reached the line.
Yet, we always see those two scenarios being directly compared, as some form of justification for a cycle running a light.
Personally I don't see a difference between red light jumpers, cyclists and drivers are as bad as each other. But if you are trying to make a distinction then yes, red light jumping in a car is significantly more dangerous.
They may not have liked it, and some certainly will not have agreed.
I think this amendment might be more politically correcty for this audience:
There is a significant difference between..
A stupid road user who zips through a red light, just as it changes and crosses the path of traffic before it moves.
and..
A road user who deliberately via a pre meditated act does not stop for a red light, that has been that way (RED) for a number of seconds before they reached the line and puts himself and others at risk by crossing into/over/past a an opposing lane under a green light.
The first is an idiot chancer.
The second is a moron.
No matter what they are piloting, they are deliberately putting themselves and innocent parties who HAVE chosen to correctly follow the same rules (we have all been given) at risk,
There is a significant difference between..
A stupid road user who zips through a red light, just as it changes and crosses the path of traffic before it moves.
and..
A road user who deliberately via a pre meditated act does not stop for a red light, that has been that way (RED) for a number of seconds before they reached the line and puts himself and others at risk by crossing into/over/past a an opposing lane under a green light.
The first is an idiot chancer.
The second is a moron.
No matter what they are piloting, they are deliberately putting themselves and innocent parties who HAVE chosen to correctly follow the same rules (we have all been given) at risk,
Hol said:
I think this amendment might be more politically correcty for this audience:
There is a significant difference between..
A stupid road user who zips through a red light, just as it changes and crosses the path of traffic before it moves.
and..
A road user who deliberately via a pre meditated act does not stop for a red light, that has been that way (RED) for a number of seconds before they reached the line and puts himself and others at risk by crossing into/over/past a an opposing lane under a green light.
The first is an idiot chancer.
The second is a moron.
No matter what they are piloting, they are deliberately putting themselves and innocent parties who HAVE chosen to correctly follow the same rules (we have all been given) at risk,
Unless they're in the US, then it's perfectly acceptable to turn right on red if it's clear.There is a significant difference between..
A stupid road user who zips through a red light, just as it changes and crosses the path of traffic before it moves.
and..
A road user who deliberately via a pre meditated act does not stop for a red light, that has been that way (RED) for a number of seconds before they reached the line and puts himself and others at risk by crossing into/over/past a an opposing lane under a green light.
The first is an idiot chancer.
The second is a moron.
No matter what they are piloting, they are deliberately putting themselves and innocent parties who HAVE chosen to correctly follow the same rules (we have all been given) at risk,
The RLJ thing is interesting, I don't jump reds, but I cruise at ~85 on the motorway. This makes me a hypocrite, I acknowledge- you can't pick and choose which laws to obey, but there you go.
What is the following sentence talking about?
"It's a victimless crime, no-one ever gets hurt when I [mystery], there's often no reason not to [mystery] as it's perfectly safe to do so. The people who complain about me [doing this mysterious thing] are just jealous that I'm going to get where I'm going faster than them."
What is the following sentence talking about?
"It's a victimless crime, no-one ever gets hurt when I [mystery], there's often no reason not to [mystery] as it's perfectly safe to do so. The people who complain about me [doing this mysterious thing] are just jealous that I'm going to get where I'm going faster than them."
</lurk>
Lots of posts, little progress....
Dammit said:
Cyclists are incredibly vulnerable - more so than pedestrians due to the cyclists own speed adding more kinetic energy to an accident, yet we have utter cretins like TopOnePercent suggesting that you can just "nerf them off". I mean, you can, but they'll have a lot of broken bones and significant skin loss.
While I agree with your position regarding the vulnerability of cyclists and it being cretinous to knock them off, TOPs posts made reference to speeds of 4 mph, or walking pace as it's also known. I'm certainly not condoning such behaviour, but to suggest that broken bones and significant skin loss would be inevitable at that speed is disingenuous. Where there is no cross traffic such as vehicles, pedestrians, or other cyclists, I'd agree that RLJ may improve safety, and shouldn't put anyone at risk provided it is done at low speed rather than 20+ where the cyclist can't react in time if the situation changes. It moves the cyclist beyond the intersection prior to traffic moving which eliminates the zone where the cyclist holds up the traffic due to slower acceleration.
WinstonWolf said:
Unless they're in the US, then it's perfectly acceptable to turn right on red if it's clear.
New York doesn't allow it for most junctions. In all states, you're required to stop first, then are allowed to proceed if it’s clear - You can't just blaze through at vmax. Where allowed, it is allowed for all vehicles, stemming as it does from the oil crisis.Its time our road laws were modernised, preferably by starting from a clean sheet of paper, but that's unlikely to happen while road users are divided into camps predicated on vehicle preference, as this thread shows perfectly well.
Everyone should be aware of who the most vulnerable road users are, and take additional care around them, but that also includes those vulnerable road users taking extra care of themselves too. On the road, aggression only ever leads to more aggression, as both the SUV driver & cyclist are now painfully aware.
And no, my bike doesn't have a tax disc, and nor do my trainers, but most of my cars do.
<lurk>
Hol said:
Is it not much betetr for everyone, to follow the same rules, as laid out in statute, and not pass a red light at all???
I personally think it is. And I wont be in the minority.
I agree that everyone should follow the same rules. I was disagreeing with the implication of which idiot was worse.I personally think it is. And I wont be in the minority.
7thcircleacolyte- the motor vehicle used to "nerf" may be doing 4mph, the bicycle probably significantly more.
I'd question how successful you'd be trying to block someone on a bike when driving at walking pace, also.
i.e. I suspect that the 4mph figure was, like most of the rest of TOP's contribution, not accurate in any way that is meaningful.
I'd question how successful you'd be trying to block someone on a bike when driving at walking pace, also.
i.e. I suspect that the 4mph figure was, like most of the rest of TOP's contribution, not accurate in any way that is meaningful.
Hol said:
You could just as easily say, that a cyclist is therefore deliberately putting himself at risk from being hit by a heavier moving object, that quite correctly is not expecting to see a cyclist pass red light.
You could, but if you are going to take a risk and break the law, it is morally more acceptable if you suffer the consequences yourself than a third partyHol said:
I think this amendment might be more politically correcty for this audience:
There is a significant difference between..
A stupid road user who zips through a red light, just as it changes and crosses the path of traffic before it moves.
and..
A road user who deliberately via a pre meditated act does not stop for a red light, that has been that way (RED) for a number of seconds before they reached the line and puts himself and others at risk by crossing into/over/past a an opposing lane under a green light.
The first is an idiot chancer.
The second is a moron.
No matter what they are piloting, they are deliberately putting themselves and innocent parties who HAVE chosen to correctly follow the same rules (we have all been given) at risk,
Exactly. No doubt someone will be along shortly to go on about the difference in weight between cars and bikes, and how that makes bikes breaking the rules alright.There is a significant difference between..
A stupid road user who zips through a red light, just as it changes and crosses the path of traffic before it moves.
and..
A road user who deliberately via a pre meditated act does not stop for a red light, that has been that way (RED) for a number of seconds before they reached the line and puts himself and others at risk by crossing into/over/past a an opposing lane under a green light.
The first is an idiot chancer.
The second is a moron.
No matter what they are piloting, they are deliberately putting themselves and innocent parties who HAVE chosen to correctly follow the same rules (we have all been given) at risk,
scenario8 said:
Week day / daytime bump.
Has anyone seen any updates in this case over the last year?
Convicted of attempted grievous bodily harm, dangerous driving and damaging property.Has anyone seen any updates in this case over the last year?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-convict...
http://road.cc/content/news/167662-4x4-driver-trie...
Sounds like she deliberately tried to run him over and then lied about it.
Sounds like she deliberately tried to run him over and then lied about it.
otolith said:
scenario8 said:
Week day / daytime bump.
Has anyone seen any updates in this case over the last year?
Convicted of attempted grievous bodily harm, dangerous driving and damaging property.Has anyone seen any updates in this case over the last year?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-convict...
A previous conviction for Dangerous and/or Driving over the alcohol limit. Found to have deliberately accelerated into the cyclist and then lied about it all the way to Court. Sounds like a charming lady!
Bailed til early November for sentencing.
I do hope now it's gone to Court the cycling bashing doesn't start again
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff