Lemming cyclist faceplants into hedge...

[monthou]

saaby93 said:

what's made up about 'seemed to be' - afterwards one foot is on the pedal, one isnt

Similar was already said on page 1 but does the police pic show enough space to put one foot on the ground like Bikes1 and 3 when they stopped?

It's just made up. Yes, on page 1 people had the impression she was lying in the ditch with her feet still attached to the pedals. It's now clear that wasn't the case. It's also incontrovertible that we don't see how she ends up in the ditch and the first view after the fall has a leg way away from the pedal.
You know all this but you still repeat the 'seemed to be some issue detaching feet from pedals until they were topsy turvy in the shrubbery.'. It's very odd.

[saaby93]

monthou said:

saaby93 said:

what's made up about 'seemed to be' - afterwards one foot is on the pedal, one isnt

Similar was already said on page 1 but does the police pic show enough space to put one foot on the ground like Bikes1 and 3 when they stopped?

It's just made up. Yes, on page 1 people had the impression she was lying in the ditch with her feet still attached to the pedals. It's now clear that wasn't the case. It's also incontrovertible that we don't see how she ends up in the ditch and the first view after the fall has a leg way away from the pedal.
You know all this but you still repeat the 'seemed to be some issue detaching feet from pedals until they were topsy turvy in the shrubbery.'. It's very odd.

It is very odd
and no I didnt say her feet were still attached to pedals all I said was seemd to be etc
Dont read more into it than there is

[monthou]

saaby93 said:

It is very odd
and no I didnt say her feet were still attached to pedals all I said was seemd to be etc
Dont read more into it than there is

Attached / seemed to be attached / potato / tomato.
Made up. Odd. Strange. Bizarre.

[ddom]

andymadmak said:

I thought you thought that cyclists didn't run red lights.....
I'll not hold my breath waiting for your apology.

You did, well allow me to disappoint you. You see, riding a few miles in the middle of nowhere there's a very good chance that 'running' a red light means waiting for 20s and no traffic, therefore we proceed. I understand this must be infuriating, but nobody was harmed. a red light in central London is somewhat different, clearly. I'll not hold my breath waiting for you to catch up.

[andymadmak]

ddom said:

andymadmak said:

I thought you thought that cyclists didn't run red lights.....
I'll not hold my breath waiting for your apology.

You did, well allow me to disappoint you. You see, riding a few miles in the middle of nowhere there's a very good chance that 'running' a red light means waiting for 20s and no traffic, therefore we proceed. I understand this must be infuriating, but nobody was harmed. a red light in central London is somewhat different, clearly. I'll not hold my breath waiting for you to catch up.

You didn’t read that thread I linked to did you? Ok, well, stay ignorant and wrong.

[ddom]

andymadmak said:

You didn’t read that thread I linked to did you? Ok, well, stay ignorant and wrong.

What is ignorant in stating riding through a red light in a rural location, if carried out with due care, isn’t actually dangerous whatsoever? Why is it some on here continue to ask ‘cyclists’ to apologise for other cyclists behaviour, it’s an individual, not the measure of a class of traffic in it’s entirety? This all points, as usual, to people who are just quite angry in general looking for any excuse to have a dig.

[NDA]

ddom said:

riding through a red light in a rural location, if carried out with due care, isn’t actually dangerous whatsoever?

In your opinion.

I'm always a little anxious about individual interpretations of the law.

[monthou]

NDA said:

ddom said:

riding through a red light in a rural location, if carried out with due care, isn’t actually dangerous whatsoever?

In your opinion.

I'm always a little anxious about individual interpretations of the law.

Really? Always?
How do you feel about people doing 75 on the motorway?

[ddom]

NDA said:

In your opinion.

I'm always a little anxious about individual interpretations of the law.

I think it’s demonstrated clearly by the fact I’m still here, in that particular crossing what was the risk exactly? Being judged by the PH Cycling Morality Police

Drive over to the M40 at Handy Cross to witness various vehicles going through red lights at pace off of the slip roads.

[Solocle]

NDA said:

ddom said:

riding through a red light in a rural location, if carried out with due care, isn’t actually dangerous whatsoever?

In your opinion.

I'm always a little anxious about individual interpretations of the law.

It's not a question of interpretation of the law. The law is that propelling a vehicle across the stop line while the light is red is illegal. The law is that exceeding a speed limit by any amount whatsoever, be it 10 mph, 1 mph, or 0.00001 mph, is illegal (for a motor vehicle driver).

Whether it is safe or not to do so is a completely different question. 80 mph on an empty motorway in good conditions is effectively completely safe. Heck, 100 mph probably would be too... But still illegal.

It's not illegal for me to do 55 mph in a 30 limit on a bicycle. I've actually done so, as I deemed it safe - straight downhill with excellent visibility, and the only pedestrians I passed were further up where it was still a 60...

Youtube Clip

Obviously if I kept my speed around that corner with the junction, blasted out of the "give way" and into the town centre still doing 50 mph, that would be insanely dangerous, not least by virtue of excessive speed, even though I wouldn't be committing the offence of speeding.

[Timothy Bucktu]

It looks pretty obvious to me what happened here, and it seems everyone is arguing over slightly different versions of the same thing.

Car comes down a narrow road clearly a little quick (I would guess around 20-25mph?) and a little close to the cyclists
Cyclist in front comes to an abrupt stop so he can berate the driver
Cyclist behind can't hit the brakes quick enough (or maybe did but skidded on the wet muddy road?) and falls off feet still clipped in
Cammer behind is busy looking back at the Landy and turns back to see cyclist #2 in the hedge

50/50
Driver could have maybe given more room
Cyclist #1 stopping caused the second cyclists who was travelling too close to take avoiding action and fail

[andymadmak]

ddom said:

andymadmak said:

You didn’t read that thread I linked to did you? Ok, well, stay ignorant and wrong.

What is ignorant in stating riding through a red light in a rural location, if carried out with due care, isn’t actually dangerous whatsoever? Why is it some on here continue to ask ‘cyclists’ to apologise for other cyclists behaviour, it’s an individual, not the measure of a class of traffic in it’s entirety? This all points, as usual, to people who are just quite angry in general looking for any excuse to have a dig.

The only angry person here is you. Angry and irrational and now desperately trying to extract yourself from a situation you created. Let me remind you of how our exchange went (I will shorten the posts to reduce space) Keep in mind that this was triggered by a video of a man riding in what looked like a city centre................

andymadmak said:

The dangers of running red lights........ but then again I have read here on PH that cyclists should be allowed to judge for themselves when to run red lights because they know best and it's safer something something something.

To which you replied

ddom said:

Please quote this or admit it’s nonsense?

I replied

andymadmak said:

I can't be arsed to find the thread but it's from not so long ago (maybe last year) when there was a discussion about a cyclist who knocked down and killed a pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing. He (the cyclist) ran the red light. There were a number of posters who all said that running red lights was not a problem per se, and that they could judge when it was appropriate to do so. A couple said that waiting at red lights was dangerous for cyclists, some even said that road sensors were not triggered by cyclists so that HAD to run red lights or the lights would not change for them. I pointed out time after time that all road users regardless of conveyance should follow the rules. But I was roundly criticised and (strangely enough) accused of having a secret hatred of cyclists. I don't I just like everyone to follow rules around red lights and junctions and pedestrian crossings.

Having implied that I had posted nonsense by claiming that some cyclists actively run red lights you then decided to get personal and attack me for formatting issues. So I posted a link to the very thread that illustrated the point I was making - just as you had requested! ...and you ignored it and made a smart arse comment about punctuation instead. Cue several posters actively admitting (and providing justification for) to running red lights when cycling.... In other words, showing that I was 100% correct in my original post!
And now you're backtracking and wriggling by suggesting that we're talking about riding in the countryside, and pretending that people are expecting cyclists to apologise for other cyclists. Angry? Look in the mirror Mr Angry. You have issues with people pointing out the bleeding obvious if that contradicts your world view.

[anonymous-user]

Timothy Bucktu said:

It looks pretty obvious to me what happened here, and it seems everyone is arguing over slightly different versions of the same thing.

Car comes down a narrow road clearly a little quick (I would guess around 20-25mph?) and a little close to the cyclists
Cyclist in front comes to an abrupt stop so he can berate the driver
Cyclist behind can't hit the brakes quick enough (or maybe did but skidded on the wet muddy road?) and falls off feet still clipped in
Cammer behind is busy looking back at the Landy and turns back to see cyclist #2 in the hedge

50/50
Driver could have maybe given more room
Cyclist #1 stopping caused the second cyclists who was travelling too close to take avoiding action and fail

Get away with your sensibilities.

The evil Land Rover driver pleaded guilty, so it follows that the cyclists are all innocent. Or something.

I'm sure one of the sanctimonious ones will be along in a second to tell you properly.

[ddom]

andymadmak said:

Having implied that I had posted nonsense by claiming that some cyclists.

andymadmak said:

but then again I have read here on PH that cyclists should be allowed to judge for themselves when to run red lights because they know best and it's safer something something something.

You said ‘cyclists’ not ‘some’. Which is nonsense. As is this hysterical outrage that there are cases where you can pass a red light quite safely. The opposite is also true if you choose the wrong time to do do, a bit like speeding. It’s not excessive speed that kills, it’s excessive speeds at the wrong time. Basic common sense, which as a cyclist and driver will keep you safe. And for the record, I think you’ll struggle to find many who enjoy cycling to condone st riding, I have found them to be better drivers as well.

[J4CKO]

OnTheBreadline said:

Timothy Bucktu said:

It looks pretty obvious to me what happened here, and it seems everyone is arguing over slightly different versions of the same thing.

Car comes down a narrow road clearly a little quick (I would guess around 20-25mph?) and a little close to the cyclists
Cyclist in front comes to an abrupt stop so he can berate the driver
Cyclist behind can't hit the brakes quick enough (or maybe did but skidded on the wet muddy road?) and falls off feet still clipped in
Cammer behind is busy looking back at the Landy and turns back to see cyclist #2 in the hedge

50/50
Driver could have maybe given more room
Cyclist #1 stopping caused the second cyclists who was travelling too close to take avoiding action and fail

Get away with your sensibilities.

The evil Land Rover driver pleaded guilty, so it follows that the cyclists are all innocent. Or something.

I'm sure one of the sanctimonious ones will be along in a second to tell you properly.

I dont disagree but the deal is that the car driver has the greater responsibility due to the massively higher capacity for causing damage, death and injury.

Thats not sanctimony, its the law and also the right thing to do. That doesn't absolve cyclists or any other road user of any responsibility, its inherent in using the road and anyone who doesn't meet the required standard should be held to account, granted its more difficult with cyclists due to lack of identification plates but they go much slower and arent surrounded by metal and plastic, thats their bit of the deal, so many seem to think cyclists want super rights, but most just want to go for a ride and not get splattered.

But the inappropriate speed given the situation is what the main issue was here, had the LR been going 10 mph slower it would really just be a mildly amusing video of a cyclist falling into a some undergrowth, which it still is but the LR going too fast is what precipitated the alarm and subsequently the lie down at the side of the road.

There isnt really another situation as a member of the public, other than driving a car where we have so much potential to hurt someone else, or ourselves, we used to kill 10000 people a year in the UK on the roads, its now nearer 2000 despite higher traffic volumes and a bigger population, but its still too many.

Have said that on a bike you can still be in the right but closely inspecting the axles of a HGV, but also you can be in the right in a car and still be responsible for injuring or killing someone. I worked with a guy who when driving killed an old gent crossing the road , he was not prosecuted at it was deemed the old chap had crossed inappropriately but that still deeply affected him. I killed a dog in my car when I hadn't been driving long, the owners kids launched a ball into the road, couldn't do anything but I still relive that from time to time, 34 years on.

Go and stand in the road on foot and get someone to go past you in an average sized car at 10 mph, 20 mph, 30 mph, 40 mph etc and at the same time reduce the distance, how fast an how close will you get before you tap out ?

[nickfrog]

OnTheBreadline said:

Get away with your sensibilities.

The evil Land Rover driver pleaded guilty, so it follows that the cyclists are all innocent. Or something.

I'm sure one of the sanctimonious ones will be along in a second to tell you properly.

I appreciate your like sweeping statements, binary thinking and strawman arguments but I think you're too emotionally involved for your view to be of any value. And by "cyclists" you mean "drivers", right ? You know most cyclists are drivers, particularly on PH, so they have both perspectives.

[Timothy Bucktu]

J4CKO said:

OnTheBreadline said:

Timothy Bucktu said:

It looks pretty obvious to me what happened here, and it seems everyone is arguing over slightly different versions of the same thing.

Car comes down a narrow road clearly a little quick (I would guess around 20-25mph?) and a little close to the cyclists
Cyclist in front comes to an abrupt stop so he can berate the driver
Cyclist behind can't hit the brakes quick enough (or maybe did but skidded on the wet muddy road?) and falls off feet still clipped in
Cammer behind is busy looking back at the Landy and turns back to see cyclist #2 in the hedge

50/50
Driver could have maybe given more room
Cyclist #1 stopping caused the second cyclists who was travelling too close to take avoiding action and fail

Get away with your sensibilities.

The evil Land Rover driver pleaded guilty, so it follows that the cyclists are all innocent. Or something.

I'm sure one of the sanctimonious ones will be along in a second to tell you properly.

I dont disagree but the deal is that the car driver has the greater responsibility due to the massively higher capacity for causing damage, death and injury.

Thats not sanctimony, its the law and also the right thing to do. That doesn't absolve cyclists or any other road user of any responsibility, its inherent in using the road and anyone who doesn't meet the required standard should be held to account, granted its more difficult with cyclists due to lack of identification plates but they go much slower and arent surrounded by metal and plastic, thats their bit of the deal, so many seem to think cyclists want super rights, but most just want to go for a ride and not get splattered.

But the inappropriate speed given the situation is what the main issue was here, had the LR been going 10 mph slower it would really just be a mildly amusing video of a cyclist falling into a some undergrowth, which it still is but the LR going too fast is what precipitated the alarm and subsequently the lie down at the side of the road.

There isnt really another situation as a member of the public, other than driving a car where we have so much potential to hurt someone else, or ourselves, we used to kill 10000 people a year in the UK on the roads, its now nearer 2000 despite higher traffic volumes and a bigger population, but its still too many.

Have said that on a bike you can still be in the right but closely inspecting the axles of a HGV, but also you can be in the right in a car and still be responsible for injuring or killing someone. I worked with a guy who when driving killed an old gent crossing the road , he was not prosecuted at it was deemed the old chap had crossed inappropriately but that still deeply affected him. I killed a dog in my car when I hadn't been driving long, the owners kids launched a ball into the road, couldn't do anything but I still relive that from time to time, 34 years on.

Go and stand in the road on foot and get someone to go past you in an average sized car at 10 mph, 20 mph, 30 mph, 40 mph etc and at the same time reduce the distance, how fast an how close will you get before you tap out ?

So, you broadly agree with me then
Honestly, I ride a motorcycle and have done for 40 years. If I had the attitude of some modern day cyclists I'd almost certainly be dead long ago.
The actual cause of this accident (and it was just an accident) was the cyclist riding too close to the bike in front. That's it. If they were further back they wouldn't have needed to take emergency avoidance. I'd also say the front cyclist paid a significant part with their abrupt stop.
The car driver clearly should have given a bit more room, but he wasn't the cause.
Really, this is one of those things where several actions led to a bit of embarrassment. Dust yourselves down, shake hands, move on.

Sadly, we don't seem to be able to just accept st happens these days.

[Randy Winkman]

Timothy Bucktu said:

J4CKO said:

OnTheBreadline said:

Timothy Bucktu said:

It looks pretty obvious to me what happened here, and it seems everyone is arguing over slightly different versions of the same thing.

Car comes down a narrow road clearly a little quick (I would guess around 20-25mph?) and a little close to the cyclists
Cyclist in front comes to an abrupt stop so he can berate the driver
Cyclist behind can't hit the brakes quick enough (or maybe did but skidded on the wet muddy road?) and falls off feet still clipped in
Cammer behind is busy looking back at the Landy and turns back to see cyclist #2 in the hedge

50/50
Driver could have maybe given more room
Cyclist #1 stopping caused the second cyclists who was travelling too close to take avoiding action and fail

Get away with your sensibilities.

The evil Land Rover driver pleaded guilty, so it follows that the cyclists are all innocent. Or something.

I'm sure one of the sanctimonious ones will be along in a second to tell you properly.

I dont disagree but the deal is that the car driver has the greater responsibility due to the massively higher capacity for causing damage, death and injury.

Thats not sanctimony, its the law and also the right thing to do. That doesn't absolve cyclists or any other road user of any responsibility, its inherent in using the road and anyone who doesn't meet the required standard should be held to account, granted its more difficult with cyclists due to lack of identification plates but they go much slower and arent surrounded by metal and plastic, thats their bit of the deal, so many seem to think cyclists want super rights, but most just want to go for a ride and not get splattered.

But the inappropriate speed given the situation is what the main issue was here, had the LR been going 10 mph slower it would really just be a mildly amusing video of a cyclist falling into a some undergrowth, which it still is but the LR going too fast is what precipitated the alarm and subsequently the lie down at the side of the road.

There isnt really another situation as a member of the public, other than driving a car where we have so much potential to hurt someone else, or ourselves, we used to kill 10000 people a year in the UK on the roads, its now nearer 2000 despite higher traffic volumes and a bigger population, but its still too many.

Have said that on a bike you can still be in the right but closely inspecting the axles of a HGV, but also you can be in the right in a car and still be responsible for injuring or killing someone. I worked with a guy who when driving killed an old gent crossing the road , he was not prosecuted at it was deemed the old chap had crossed inappropriately but that still deeply affected him. I killed a dog in my car when I hadn't been driving long, the owners kids launched a ball into the road, couldn't do anything but I still relive that from time to time, 34 years on.

Go and stand in the road on foot and get someone to go past you in an average sized car at 10 mph, 20 mph, 30 mph, 40 mph etc and at the same time reduce the distance, how fast an how close will you get before you tap out ?

So, you broadly agree with me then
Honestly, I ride a motorcycle and have done for 40 years. If I had the attitude of some modern day cyclists I'd almost certainly be dead long ago.
The actual cause of this accident (and it was just an accident) was the cyclist riding too close to the bike in front. That's it. If they were further back they wouldn't have needed to take emergency avoidance. I'd also say the front cyclist paid a significant part with their abrupt stop.
The car driver clearly should have given a bit more room, but he wasn't the cause.
Really, this is one of those things where several actions led to a bit of embarrassment. Dust yourselves down, shake hands, move on.

Sadly, we don't seem to be able to just accept st happens these days.

If the car driver had slowed to, for argument's sake, 10mph, do you think anyone would have fallen off their bike?

[mike9009]

Arguably the first cyclist stopped because they felt the Land Rover was going quite quickly and quite close.

[heebeegeetee]

NDA said:

ddom said:

riding through a red light in a rural location, if carried out with due care, isn’t actually dangerous whatsoever?

In your opinion.

I'm always a little anxious about individual interpretations of the law.

Hmm. Whenever I see a statement like that I often click on the profile to see what cars might be there, and oh look, a nice collection of some fast cars.

I'm sorry, but you did NOT own those cars in order to obey the speed limits.

Timothy Bucktu said:

The car driver clearly should have given a bit more room, but he wasn't the cause.

No, and the cyclist falling over wasn't the reason the driver got done either.