RE: Motorists To Take Blame For Cycle Crashes

[Mr Gear]

Pothole said:

Mr Gear said:

FOUND IT!

Read this if you are genuinely interested in this topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/columnists/jam...

I think James presents a well balanced view here.

except he's done no research (it's NOT BEING CONSIDERED) and/or is delusional if he thinks this does not apply to everything he would class under the description:

"So we are now in a position where a small group of sour-faced miserablists could ruin one of life's simple pleasures and one of man's greatest inventions for the rest of us."

As said above, I don't think I agree with conclusion he came to, but I do agree with his sentiment.

[Crippo]

I dont see how it could be possible to legislate bicycles in any way as they are so casually used by both young and old. They have indeterminate value (in that second hand prices can be anything as there is no service history or warranty record) Also parts are changed regularly you could buy a bike X and with a few up grades end up with a completely different bike, how could you track this? There is absolutely no way bikes could be legislated for.
Think about it for one minute and you will realise this is the case

[Negative Creep]

The problem with cyclists is that they are just so unpredictable. If you come across a car, motorbike, lorry etc on the road then chances are they will drive roughly within the speed limit and obey the Highway Code. Ok it's no guarantee, but the vast majority do. However come across a cyclist and you have no idea what they will do. Will they ride properly, stop for lights, signal when turning? Or will they cut between cars, use the pavement, ride the wrong way up the road and use the pavement when they feel like it? From my experience I've found the ones who have decent bikes and all the safety kit are likely to be the former. It's the scrotes on cheap mountain bikes or idiots on bmx's who are the real liability. Such as the one last night who decided to cut right in front of me as I was pulling out of a space so he could ride on the other pavement.

It seems to me the government want everyone to ride but have put no thought into how this will be achieved. Where are the adverts reminding people they must obey the laws of the road? Why are the Police not having a high profile campaign stopping idiots who ride without lights and helmets?

[swldxer]

Negative Creep said:

Why are the Police not having a high profile campaign stopping idiots who ride without lights and helmets?

Maybe because it is not a legal requirement to wear one?

[henrycrun]

'Cyclists' don't ride on the pavement. A 'person on a bike' rides on the pavement.

[Vipers]

swldxer said:

Negative Creep said:

Why are the Police not having a high profile campaign stopping idiots who ride without lights and helmets?

Maybe because it is not a legal requirement to wear one?

I think I am right in saying the only legal obligation for a motorcylists is to wear a helmet, nowt about jacket, gloves, boots. I seem to recall a petition some years when a number of motorcyclist rode through London in their underpants and helmet.

Having fallen off my bike on ice, and cracked the helmet on the side into 6 bits, sustaining no other injury to my head, I think you have to be mad not to wear one.

[swldxer]

Vipers said:

swldxer said:

Negative Creep said:

Why are the Police not having a high profile campaign stopping idiots who ride without lights and helmets?

Maybe because it is not a legal requirement to wear one?

I think I am right in saying the only legal obligation for a motorcylists is to wear a helmet, nowt about jacket, gloves, boots. I seem to recall a petition some years when a number of motorcyclist rode through London in their underpants and helmet.

Having fallen off my bike on ice, and cracked the helmet on the side into 6 bits, sustaining no other injury to my head, I think you have to be mad not to wear one.

Do you wear one when you walk on ice, or in the car like a rally drivers does? Helmet use is virtually zero in Holland and they have the lowest casualty rate for cyclists. They are useful for weasel lawyers to try and reduce compo claims to cyclists injured when not wearing one though.

[Vipers]

swldxer said:

Vipers said:

swldxer said:

Negative Creep said:

Why are the Police not having a high profile campaign stopping idiots who ride without lights and helmets?

Maybe because it is not a legal requirement to wear one?

I think I am right in saying the only legal obligation for a motorcylists is to wear a helmet, nowt about jacket, gloves, boots. I seem to recall a petition some years when a number of motorcyclist rode through London in their underpants and helmet.

Having fallen off my bike on ice, and cracked the helmet on the side into 6 bits, sustaining no other injury to my head, I think you have to be mad not to wear one.

Do you wear one when you walk on ice, or in the car like a rally drivers does? Helmet use is virtually zero in Holland and they have the lowest casualty rate for cyclists. They are useful for weasel lawyers to try and reduce compo claims to cyclists injured when not wearing one though.

No but I should have added, wearing clip on shoes, and when sitting on a bike, me being 6 ft, my head is about 6 6 from the ground, (Height plus pedel height) fell sideways very fast, couldnt get shoes out, resulting in a heafty thwak on the head, less likely when walking and slipping on ice me thinks.

At the end of the day, each to their own, but I think it is difficult to compare cycling in Holland to UK, they are geared up to it, cycle lanes, better appreciation from both cyclists and drivers over there.

[swldxer]

Fair dos, but in 60000 miles over the last 10 years I have never hit my bonce and all of those summers with the wind in my hair are priceless. I tried a helmet on one hot summer's day and I couldn't wait to get it off - horrible things. One thing I tend to do is look out more as I don't have a magic force field around me that having a helmet on gives. ;-)

I even ride time trials without one, but I think I am the only one who does, apart from the odd 70 year old rider.

[zebedee]

lets not have the helmet/no helmet debate here - suffice to say it isn't the law, so is not a reason for a motorist to challenge whether a cyclist should or shouldn't be on the road. In fact, there aren't any reasons why cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the roads, so this thread should just be locked, useful as it has been for 'outing' some completely retarded points of view.

[Pip1968]

I have not read all fourteen pages of comments but do think that the onus should be put on motor vehicle drivers more. The bottom line is if a car hits a cyclist it is extremely unlikely that the motorist will be injured whilst the cyclist is almost guaranteed to be.

Drivers drive along in their little safety boxes and often pay no attention to other road users OR cyclists. If you make a mistake on a bike you pay the consequences unlike if you are in a car.

The alternative for me is to make all car drivers pass their cycling proficiency and spend a couple of years in the saddle before driving which would given them a better perspective of the world of cycling and bikers.

I should add that I track my car and have two performance vehicles and four bicycles (-track/road racer/mountain/folding for commuting) so am not a stranger to either method of travel.

In a car you can kill quite easily and on a bike there is little chance of this.

Pip

[Wilder]

Pip thats the most nieve blinkered thing Ive read...forget car drivers -how many people on a bicycle do you think have bothered to take a cycling proficiency test? - as a percentage Id guess at 1% maybe if your lucky.
When a 10 yr old can ride on a busy road without any training or equipment, then its the cyclist that needs training and regulating, and not yet further harrassment and villification of the motorist - period

[Vipers]

Wilder said:

Pip thats the most nieve blinkered thing Ive read...forget car drivers -how many people on a bicycle do you think have bothered to take a cycling proficiency test? - as a percentage Id guess at 1% maybe if your lucky.

When a 10 yr old can ride on a busy road without any training or equipment, then its the cyclist that needs training and regulating, and not yet further harrassment and villification of the motorist - period

Agree, how many cylists do we see WITHOUT reflective clothing, OK not required, but common sense on these dark mornings/evenings does say something, some without lights, small targets, and they expect the car driver to see them!

Basically we are all accountable to other road users, and we should all assist others in achieving that goal, my motto whether it's on my bike, or car, "See and be seen"

Anyway dear readers, winter is upon us, if nothing else, make sure all your lights are working, especially that one in the front which is angled straight into the rear view mirror of the car in front, one of which I met today, doh.....

[swldxer]

After I was knocked off my bike in bright sunshine the other day I have resolved to have my back light on every time I ride on the road when I get back in action. I can afford the batteries after I get my compo payment. ;-)

[Mr Gear]

It makes me wonder exactly how blind some drivers are. Bollards, lamp posts and bushes don't wear hi-viz jackets... how are these myopic drivers still alive?

[swldxer]

Here's how it happened. I am object "x" and was hit by a car undertaking the one waiting to turn right. Note it entered the no overtaking zone before a pelican crossing.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zhash.jpg

[B Oeuf]

Vipers said:

Wilder said:

Pip thats the most nieve blinkered thing Ive read...forget car drivers -how many people on a bicycle do you think have bothered to take a cycling proficiency test? - as a percentage Id guess at 1% maybe if your lucky.

When a 10 yr old can ride on a busy road without any training or equipment, then its the cyclist that needs training and regulating, and not yet further harrassment and villification of the motorist - period

Agree, how many cylists do we see WITHOUT reflective clothing, OK not required, but common sense on these dark mornings/evenings does say something, some without lights, small targets, and they expect the car driver to see them!

Basically we are all accountable to other road users, and we should all assist others in achieving that goal, my motto whether it's on my bike, or car, "See and be seen"

Anyway dear readers, winter is upon us, if nothing else, make sure all your lights are working, especially that one in the front which is angled straight into the rear view mirror of the car in front, one of which I met today, doh.....

Yup, last winter I nearly hit a cyclist, it was pitch black on an unlit country road and the cock was riding sans lights wearing camoflage FFS! yet according to pip......and the law, it would be my fault had I hit him

[Chicane-UK]

B Oeuf said:

Yup, last winter I nearly hit a cyclist, it was pitch black on an unlit country road and the cock was riding sans lights wearing camoflage FFS! yet according to pip......and the law, it would be my fault had I hit him

Come on... no one is suggesting it should be as clear cut as that. I think the point of the article would make the motorist more accountable unless there was compelling evidence to prove otherwise. When plod showed up and examined the condition of the cyclist to discover no lights (and probably not even any fixtures for lights!), totally inapproriate clothing, and a testimony from you to explain what had happened, I doubt somehow that you'd even be remotely accountable.

[B Oeuf]

Chicane-UK said:

B Oeuf said:

Yup, last winter I nearly hit a cyclist, it was pitch black on an unlit country road and the cock was riding sans lights wearing camoflage FFS! yet according to pip......and the law, it would be my fault had I hit him

Come on... no one is suggesting it should be as clear cut as that. I think the point of the article would make the motorist more accountable unless there was compelling evidence to prove otherwise. When plod showed up and examined the condition of the cyclist to discover no lights (and probably not even any fixtures for lights!), totally inapproriate clothing, and a testimony from you to explain what had happened, I doubt somehow that you'd even be remotely accountable.

Fair enough my example was extreme, but in less than clear cases the motorist is guilty till proven otherwise. That is wrong, one thing we should all have as a right is to be innocent till proven guilty regardless of his choice of transport.

[Mr Gear]

B Oeuf said:

...one thing we should all have as a right is to be innocent till proven guilty regardless of his choice of transport.

I agree with that, which is why I would not vote in favour of "the proposal". However, what would your proposal be for forcing drivers to be more aware? I think that is the crux of the issue. The "proposal" (I am putting that in speech marks, because its actually nothing of the sort) has some merit from that point of view in my opinion. If it makes a car driver think "st, cyclist ahead, better give them the benefit of the doubt" then it has some use.