Green MSP calls for action on cyclist deaths
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-pol...
Some sense spoken, but
Too often, I see bikes being ridden like idiots - no lights, not looking for traffic, etc. Rather than imposing more speed limits, should we not be looking to expect a basic level of competency for cyclists before they are allowed on the roads?
This is NOT an anti-cyclist rant!
Some sense spoken, but
lentil knitter said:
She said: "Among other things, I think we need to have a review of urban speed limits, with top priority given to the interests of pedestrians and cyclists.
OK, but I think more of a problem is yogurt eater said:
I also want to see every Scottish school able to provide cycle training, and every council able to invest in better road design.
Too often, I see bikes being ridden like idiots - no lights, not looking for traffic, etc. Rather than imposing more speed limits, should we not be looking to expect a basic level of competency for cyclists before they are allowed on the roads?
This is NOT an anti-cyclist rant!
XitUp said:
And why not make it so that if you kill someone with your car you get the same punishment as if you killed them with your fists or a knife?
So if I hadn't reacted quickly enough to do an emergency stop when a 10 year old on a bike came out of a side opening right in front of my car, and had instead hit and killed him, I should have gone to jail?Idiotic suggestion.
matchmaker said:
Too often, I see bikes being ridden like idiots - no lights, not looking for traffic, etc. Rather than imposing more speed limits, should we not be looking to expect a basic level of competency for cyclists before they are allowed on the road!
PoB's Pedestrians on Bikes. Licencing cycles has been the most discussed topic in government apart from various wars in the last fifty years. If the Police had the power to take unsafe cycles away from cyclists with no lights, no brakes, traffic light jumpers, etc the same way they have the powers to have an unsafe car recovered it would be a better incentive than a slapped wrist or a small fine at best. matchmaker said:
So if I hadn't reacted quickly enough to do an emergency stop when a 10 year old on a bike came out of a side opening right in front of my car, and had instead hit and killed him, I should have gone to jail?
Idiotic suggestion.
Yes, if you don't have enough time to react and you are carrying enough momentum to kill someone then you are driving way to fast for the conditions.Idiotic suggestion.
Idiotic driver.
matchmaker said:
Too often, I see bikes being ridden like idiots - no lights, not looking for traffic, etc. Rather than imposing more speed limits, should we not be looking to expect a basic level of competency for cyclists before they are allowed on the roads?
This is NOT an anti-cyclist rant!
Trust me the same is very much true of the average driver in this country! Here in the suburbs (with street lights) I see plenty of drivers with no headlights on at night or too busy talking on their phones or yelling at their kids... This is NOT an anti-cyclist rant!
And the only place I've seen really alarming cycling on a regular basis is in central London where everyone - drivers, cyclists and pedestrians - seems to be on a different planet. I think the only difference with the cyclists is that they have enough space to get away with it more often. That said, I have seen drivers try to create an imaginary extra line to filter as well.
But yes, more education all round and a greater awareness of what could happen in an accident would be a very good thing. The crucial thing is that a 30mph fender bender in a car is unlikely to hurt anyone. If a car hits you (or indeed vice versa) at 30mph when you're on a bicycle you might find yourself in a wheelchair.
Chris71 said:
But yes, more education all round and a greater awareness of what could happen in an accident would be a very good thing. The crucial thing is that a 30mph fender bender in a car is unlikely to hurt anyone. If a car hits you (or indeed vice versa) at 30mph when you're on a bicycle you might find yourself in a wheelchair.
Fair point but suggesting cyclists somehow have more right to be on the road than anybody else is a bad way of trying to spread understanding. That's just going to wind people up.martin84 said:
Chris71 said:
But yes, more education all round and a greater awareness of what could happen in an accident would be a very good thing. The crucial thing is that a 30mph fender bender in a car is unlikely to hurt anyone. If a car hits you (or indeed vice versa) at 30mph when you're on a bicycle you might find yourself in a wheelchair.
Fair point but suggesting cyclists somehow have more right to be on the road than anybody else is a bad way of trying to spread understanding. That's just going to wind people up.The 'top priority' comment in the original comment I think reflects the fact that cyclists or pedestrians are more likely to be the people injured in an urban accident (per head of population). If you're in a modern car wearing a seat belt and you kill yourself at 30mph you deserve some sort of medal. Hence if you want to reduce road casualties in that area then cyclists and pedestrians are the logical place to start. Country roads and dual carriageways would obviously be a rather different matter....
I do think education for both car drivers and cyclists would help. We also need to get the message through to many cyclists that they are not automatically always right. Recently I was almost run over at a pedestrian crossing when a cyclist was travelling way too quick and didn't even try to stop for the red light, he just kept going at full speed. Nothing unusual in that you might think, I see it a lot whilst in London. Except he was a policeman, presumably on his way home as he was in his full gear with a takeaway under his arm, he just looked straight at us and kept going at a pretty quick pace, with me shouting at the top of my voice "its a red light".
Chris71 said:
I don't see where that's implied.
The 'top priority' comment in the original comment I think reflects the fact that cyclists or pedestrians are more likely to be the people injured in an urban accident (per head of population).
When someone says urban speed limits should be re-thought with priority given to pedestrians and cyclists that means speed limits should be no faster than a cyclist cycles or a pedestrian walks. Thats where its implied.The 'top priority' comment in the original comment I think reflects the fact that cyclists or pedestrians are more likely to be the people injured in an urban accident (per head of population).
Putting railings beside every road in Britain, preventing people from crossing apart from at designated spots would be just as effective, but politically incorrect.
XitUp said:
Yes, if you don't have enough time to react and you are carrying enough momentum to kill someone then you are driving way to fast for the conditions.
Idiotic driver.
My dad hit a cyclist a few years ago. 30MPH speed limit road, flowing traffic, and a cyclist who attempted to cross the road by exiting at speed from behind a building directly into traffic. Clearly, the driver was the idiotic one Idiotic driver.
To make matters worse, the cyclist who was given full responsibility for the accident by the police, was uninsured and my dad had to foot the repair bill for his car.
Accidents happen, and they always will. I'd rather government regulators go find something else to worry about rather than red taping more life out of us.
I don't see what's wrong with wanting those things. I can't think of why you wouldn't want most of that - safer environment + less uneducated idiots around = win 
. Are there sufficient resources to afford it? Unlikely, so dream on.
I'd also like to see idiots riding with no lights/brakes/regard for traffic rules (or in some cases, any apparent sense of self-preservation) rounded up too (infact, I'd love to find out how someone can decide that their life isn't worth a tenner - a tenner for christ's sake - on lights, or that there is no way that bus coming towards them might fail to stop if they make an unannounced right turn across its path. Do they think drivers are psychic? Or do they just not have fear glands?). Is there the money? Also unlikely, as to satisfy campaigners we'd need to virtually eradicate bad driving first - and as has been pointed out, licensing etc., whilst effective, clearly hasn't been a silver bullet in that respect.
XitUp, I'm not sure what you're suggesting... if you are involved in an accident with someone else (be it cyclist, pedestrian, equestrian, motorcyclist, G-Wiz) in a car and they die, and it is entirely the dead person's fault, would you still support a verdict of manslaughter? I would rather some drivers were put away for manslaughter - but only when it is entirely the driver's fault.
E.g. you run over an unlit cyclist at night on a dark country road = death by careless driving. You should really be able to react to what you can see in your headlights, rather than relying on others, but the collision required more than just your negligence - in this case someone else's, although some really weird circumstances might also be viable.
The same collision in broad daylight = manslaughter. But juries are often less than rational, and CPS are very conservative, so you can forget that too
. Are there sufficient resources to afford it? Unlikely, so dream on.I'd also like to see idiots riding with no lights/brakes/regard for traffic rules (or in some cases, any apparent sense of self-preservation) rounded up too (infact, I'd love to find out how someone can decide that their life isn't worth a tenner - a tenner for christ's sake - on lights, or that there is no way that bus coming towards them might fail to stop if they make an unannounced right turn across its path. Do they think drivers are psychic? Or do they just not have fear glands?). Is there the money? Also unlikely, as to satisfy campaigners we'd need to virtually eradicate bad driving first - and as has been pointed out, licensing etc., whilst effective, clearly hasn't been a silver bullet in that respect.
XitUp, I'm not sure what you're suggesting... if you are involved in an accident with someone else (be it cyclist, pedestrian, equestrian, motorcyclist, G-Wiz) in a car and they die, and it is entirely the dead person's fault, would you still support a verdict of manslaughter? I would rather some drivers were put away for manslaughter - but only when it is entirely the driver's fault.
E.g. you run over an unlit cyclist at night on a dark country road = death by careless driving. You should really be able to react to what you can see in your headlights, rather than relying on others, but the collision required more than just your negligence - in this case someone else's, although some really weird circumstances might also be viable.
The same collision in broad daylight = manslaughter. But juries are often less than rational, and CPS are very conservative, so you can forget that too
Sorry, I thought it would be obvious that the driver should get a harsh sentence IF IT WAS THEIR FAULT. I guess I'll need to spell things out in future.
martin84 said:
Fair point but suggesting cyclists somehow have more right to be on the road than anybody else is a bad way of trying to spread understanding. That's just going to wind people up.
Who said they have more right?matchmaker said:
You are the thick one, methinks.
You just used the word 'methinks'. You have lost this one.wezo said:
I do think education for both car drivers and cyclists would help. We also need to get the message through to many cyclists that they are not automatically always right. Recently I was almost run over at a pedestrian crossing when a cyclist was travelling way too quick and didn't even try to stop for the red light, he just kept going at full speed. Nothing unusual in that you might think, I see it a lot whilst in London. Except he was a policeman, presumably on his way home as he was in his full gear with a takeaway under his arm, he just looked straight at us and kept going at a pretty quick pace, with me shouting at the top of my voice "its a red light".
What a dick. Should be on CCTV if you want to make a complaint about it.martin84 said:
Chris71 said:
I don't see where that's implied.
The 'top priority' comment in the original comment I think reflects the fact that cyclists or pedestrians are more likely to be the people injured in an urban accident (per head of population).
When someone says urban speed limits should be re-thought with priority given to pedestrians and cyclists that means speed limits should be no faster than a cyclist cycles or a pedestrian walks. Thats where its implied.The 'top priority' comment in the original comment I think reflects the fact that cyclists or pedestrians are more likely to be the people injured in an urban accident (per head of population).
Re-reading it I can see where you're coming from, but I think it's a misguided response to where the majority of the serious accidents are coming from, rather than some sort of fundamental right. An adult wearing a seatbelt at 30 mph in a modern car is already pretty much as safe as anyone needs to be. Reducing speed limits is not the way to go about it, but if you want to make city roads safer then pedestrians and cyclists are the obvious groups to target.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff