Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Mr2Mike said:
v12Legs said:
My view is that the majority of cyclists are already only too well aware of how vulnerable they are, and most of us do everything possible to keep ourselves safe. Obviously there are some crap and inattentive cyclists, but I see no evidence that there are more cyclists in that category than drivers. Same humans, after all.
I don't think most of you do though or at best not a particularly large majority. Some do certainly, but since there is no minimum standard of competence required to ride a bike, any idiot can jump on one and go and play in the traffic. Sadly it appears that a considerable number of idiots do.Motorcyclists have to take compulsory basic training before being allowed on a road, and cyclists are more vulnerable in many ways.
You personal anecdotes don't trump the evidence, however much you'd like them to.
Makem said:
You gonna bet your family's life on that?!? It's that level of "I'm right" arrogance which is the real issue. I someone was to go into the back of that there would only be one looser.
Which applies to everything smaller than a car - bicycles, motorcycles, pedestrians...Should they remove themselves from the road because you are blind too?
walm said:
I think you should get your eyes tested.
Are you seriously suggesting you can't see one of these????
I can imagine they could be difficult to see from some vehicles, e.g. SUVs, HGVs etc. as the trailers are so low compared to the rider. Fine on trails and proper cycle paths, but how anyone can think putting an infant into one of those things when riding on main roads beggars belief tbh.Are you seriously suggesting you can't see one of these????
Mr2Mike said:
I can imagine they could be difficult to see from some vehicles, e.g. SUVs, HGVs etc. as the trailers are so low compared to the rider. Fine on trails and proper cycle paths, but how anyone can think putting an infant into one of those things when riding on main roads beggars belief tbh.
And how many have you honestly seen on a main road?... I havent seen one, they are either on the pavement or on a cyclepath...walm said:
Makem said:
You gonna bet your family's life on that?!? It's that level of "I'm right" arrogance which is the real issue. I someone was to go into the back of that there would only be one looser.
Which applies to everything smaller than a car - bicycles, motorcycles, pedestrians...Should they remove themselves from the road because you are blind too?
Pedestrian pulling that on road..also stupid.
Dog pulling that...stupid
Makem said:
walm said:
Makem said:
They are invisible that's my point.
I think you should get your eyes tested.Are you seriously suggesting you can't see one of these????
If someone was to go into the back of that then they simply shouldn't be on the road, no matter what they drive.
Mr2Mike said:
I can imagine they could be difficult to see from some vehicles, e.g. SUVs, HGVs etc. as the trailers are so low compared to the rider. Fine on trails and proper cycle paths, but how anyone can think putting an infant into one of those things when riding on main roads beggars belief tbh.
You idiots do realise its attached TO A BIKE right?How f
king close to the back of a bike are you driving?Or are you just suggesting that while you might be able to see a bicycle, something much wider and more colourful ATTACHED TO A BIKE is somehow LESS visible?
walm said:
You idiots do realise its attached TO A BIKE right?
How fking close to the back of a bike are you driving?
Or are you just suggesting that while you might be able to see a bicycle, something much wider and more colourful ATTACHED TO A BIKE is somehow LESS visible?
That is exactly what I am saying. Take your head out of your aHow f
king close to the back of a bike are you driving?Or are you just suggesting that while you might be able to see a bicycle, something much wider and more colourful ATTACHED TO A BIKE is somehow LESS visible?
hole and think about blind spots from tall vehicles.v12Legs said:
Mr2Mike said:
v12Legs said:
My view is that the majority of cyclists are already only too well aware of how vulnerable they are, and most of us do everything possible to keep ourselves safe. Obviously there are some crap and inattentive cyclists, but I see no evidence that there are more cyclists in that category than drivers. Same humans, after all.
I don't think most of you do though or at best not a particularly large majority. Some do certainly, but since there is no minimum standard of competence required to ride a bike, any idiot can jump on one and go and play in the traffic. Sadly it appears that a considerable number of idiots do.Motorcyclists have to take compulsory basic training before being allowed on a road, and cyclists are more vulnerable in many ways.
You personal anecdotes don't trump the evidence, however much you'd like them to.
‘cyclist failed to look properly’ was attributed to the
cyclist in 43% of all serious collisions.
and
The second most common contributory factor
attributed to cyclists was ‘cyclist entering the road
from the pavement’. This was assigned in a fifth
of serious collisions and was especially common
for children (over a third of serious collisions).
You honestly do not get the point.
YOU are trusting someone YOU DONT KNOW not to have a lapse in attention and therefore not kill your kid.
If this happens if the said kid is in the car your mainly worried about your insurance excess re -praying the bumper
Your a mug if your choosing the first option. There is no debate to be had on that.
YOU are trusting someone YOU DONT KNOW not to have a lapse in attention and therefore not kill your kid.
If this happens if the said kid is in the car your mainly worried about your insurance excess re -praying the bumper
Your a mug if your choosing the first option. There is no debate to be had on that.
v12Legs said:
FourWheelDrift said:
v12Legs said:
You'd need to show that it was a problem that needed addressing before it would be worth the considerable effort such a system would require.
Look at your own youtube videos.I am moderator on here, I won't post them as your real name is on them.
As I have said before you would not let someone drive on the roads without passing a test, so why allow cyclists? Answer that instead of changing the subject.
pablo said:
OpulentBob said:
Cyclists, you are squishy. Self preservation above all else. Being right doesn't matter a st if you're dead. Yes it's your right to use the road, but it's also my right to paint myself black and walk the wrong way up Lane 2 of the A14 at 3am. Being "in the right" isn't always sensible. Remember that when you're slowly falling under the wheels of that truck you've just undertaken, if you shout up at the driver "I used a hand signal, therefore I'm right!" it'll magically stop the truck and save your life.
I love it when people make comments like this, I know I am squishy but most importantly you also know I am squishy, if you dont want to carry the guilt of killing a cyclist, how about putting that mobile phone away and concentrating on controlling the ton of metal at your disposal instead of checking your latest text message? Oh you dont text whilst driving? well I dont jump red lights and ride on the pavement.... t if you're dead. Yes it's your right to use the road, but it's also my right to paint myself black and walk the wrong way up Lane 2 of the A14 at 3am. Being "in the right" isn't always sensible. Remember that when you're slowly falling under the wheels of that truck you've just undertaken, if you shout up at the driver "I used a hand signal, therefore I'm right!" it'll magically stop the truck and save your life. Edited by pablo on Tuesday 27th January 13:21
I see plenty of cyclists talking on their phones, texting or wearing headphones/earbuds.
Whatever mode of wheeled transport you're using, using a mobile phone whilst using it is daft. Hell, some people struggle to walk and use a phone without drifting about.
The fact is, there are cretins among all types of road user.
What's needed is to find a way of breaking this cycle [no gags please] of the majority of one type of road user blaming the other type(s) and engaging in a calm, sensible dialogue.
FourWheelDrift said:
v12Legs said:
FourWheelDrift said:
v12Legs said:
You'd need to show that it was a problem that needed addressing before it would be worth the considerable effort such a system would require.
Look at your own youtube videos.I am moderator on here, I won't post them as your real name is on them.
As I have said before you would not let someone drive on the roads without passing a test, so why allow cyclists? Answer that instead of changing the subject.
Mr2Mike said:
pablo said:
And how many have you honestly seen on a main road?... I havent seen one, they are either on the pavement or on a cyclepath...
I've seen plenty of them on main roads over the years. Maybe this is unique to the Westcountry, but I somehow doubt it.FourWheelDrift said:
As I have said before you would not let someone drive on the roads without passing a test, so why allow cyclists? Answer that instead of changing the subject.
It's so blindingly obvious it doesn't really require an answer but here's 7.1. Bikes weigh very little.
2. Bikes are very slow.
Hence 3. Bikes don't damage other people or property very much.
4. They are cheap.
5. They are healthy.
6. They reduce congestion.
7. No test = no admin. Admin costs money. Bicycles aren't really much of a menace on the road (no matter how much PH want them to be) so that money is far better spent trying to stop people drink driving say.
Letting someone out with say 300bhp in a tonne of steel that can go 150mph is a very different risk proposition to 10kgs that struggles to get to 20mph.
Mr2Mike said:
v12Legs said:
My view is that the majority of cyclists are already only too well aware of how vulnerable they are, and most of us do everything possible to keep ourselves safe. Obviously there are some crap and inattentive cyclists, but I see no evidence that there are more cyclists in that category than drivers. Same humans, after all.
I don't think most of you do though or at best not a particularly large majority. Some do certainly, but since there is no minimum standard of competence required to ride a bike, any idiot can jump on one and go and play in the traffic. Sadly it appears that a considerable number of idiots do.Motorcyclists have to take compulsory basic training before being allowed on a road, and cyclists are more vulnerable in many ways.
pablo said:
I love it when people make comments like this, I know I am squishy but most importantly you also know I am squishy, so how about putting that mobile phone away and concentrating on controlling the ton of metal at your disposal instead of checking your latest text message? Oh you dont text whilst driving? well I dont jump red lights and ride on the pavement....
It's odd at the difference between motorcyclists and bicyclists. When you are taught to ride a motorcycle, it's all about defensive riding; being prepared for unexpected and stupid behaviour from other road users so you play an active role in keeping yourself alive. Many cyclists seem to go completely the other way and expect all other road users to behave perfectly and reject any suggestion that they should take some responsibility for their own well being. Why is this?Edited by Mr2Mike on Tuesday 27th January 13:28
walm said:
FourWheelDrift said:
As I have said before you would not let someone drive on the roads without passing a test, so why allow cyclists? Answer that instead of changing the subject.
It's so blindingly obvious it doesn't really require an answer but here's 7.1. Bikes weigh very little.
2. Bikes are very slow.
Hence 3. Bikes don't damage other people or property very much.
4. They are cheap.
5. They are healthy.
6. They reduce congestion.
7. No test = no admin. Admin costs money. Bicycles aren't really much of a menace on the road (no matter how much PH want them to be) so that money is far better spent trying to stop people drink driving say.
Letting someone out with say 300bhp in a tonne of steel that can go 150mph is a very different risk proposition to 10kgs that struggles to get to 20mph.
walm said:
10kgs that struggles to get to 20mph.
Pah. Speak for yourself 
Seriously though, I do think that lack of understanding of road rules is an issue for cyclists in some areas. You see it in Oxford all the time. Students who have never driven, do not hold a driving license and may have never been on a road in the UK before are suddenly let loose. There are many people who don't know the rules of the road at all and cycle. Equally however there seem to be, both from the road and from reading here, many drivers who don't know the rules of the road, possibly because in many cases they learned what they needed to know in the highway code for a driving test many years ago.
Something needs to be done to improve peoples knowledge all round. We need a sensible discussion without the mud slinging and stupid comments of "You don't pay road tax" or "Cyclists are not a danger to anyone".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff