bike lanes again

[Phil Pascoe]

I was on a bike (not a pushbike - an R100RT ) years ago coming home from work in a hurry and came round a blind bend quickly enough, but I knew the road wasn't 100% and was going into a 30mph limit. No one ever stopped near the bend as it was potentially lethal - but this night ahead of me there was a bus stopped at a bus stop with about 8 cars behind it. Shhit .. I thought as I anchored, I thought someone may well come around behind me. It was unsafe to go up the outside (narrow road) and there was a stack of room on the inside, so I went up on the inside of the last car. No sooner had I stopped than a car came flying round the corner and stopped about three feet from the back of the car I was sitting inside. I wish I had a camera - the guy's face was a picture.
It has always been presumed that if you hit someone from behind you are at fault, but a few years ago there was a letter in The Times from a solicitor who had taken and won five cases in nine months from people who had run up someone's arrse.
Just to change tack a little.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Come on Fin - play the white man - just admit there is one - that's all we ask for, just one ... silly person on a cycle (see - I've even not called them pushbikes )

 

[clk230]

yeap he's riding no hands !!, he then switches to the bars approx where the 'paper?' is on the road . I think the accident is a little of both to blame as they should both be aware of what is going on around them .

 

[NazNomad]

(see - I've even not called them pushbikes )

Damn youngsters, I think he means velocipede.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Ever go to La Belle France and venture out on a Velo Solex? 'king nightmares.

 

[Lons]

Irrespective of whether or not it contributed to the accident, riding his cycle with his hands off the handlebars is irresponsible and can be construed as an offence as he wasn't in proper control of his machine. he should be prosecuted using the video evidence.

Dangerous cycling
An offence committed by any person who rides a bicycle in a manner that would be considered dangerous by a competent and careful cyclist; danger of injury to any person, or of damage to property. The punishment for dangerous cycling is a fine, subject to the court’s discretion, of up to £1,000.

Careless cycling
An offence committed by any person who rides a bicycle without due care and attention and consideration for others. The punishment for careless cycling is a fine, subject to the courts discretion, of up to £1,000.

Cycling on the pavement
It is an offence to cycle on any pavement that gives right of way to pedestrians. Police officers and Community Support Officers can issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for this offence, which carry a fine of £30 though it is possible to incur a fine of up to £500. There are, however, guidelines in place that advise officers to issue a fine only if the cyclist is acting in a way that endangers others.

 

[RogerS]

My initial thought on watching the video was that it was the taxi driver's fault but on watching it again, there was adequate use of his indicator.

Unfortunately not
The taxi performed the manoeuvre after 2 indications only
The minimum recommendation is three
Clearly a case of manoeuvre signal mirror

Splitting hairs and a predictable response.

 

[Benchwayze]

Finial.

I have dealt with more than one pedestrian fatality, due to cyclists using the pavement, when they should be on the road. Still the last one was 30 years ago, so maybe they don't count?

 

[iNewbie]

Its not a case of if he was. He was. Watch the slow motion part -later in the video. He was away with the fairies. I'd call that driving without undue care and attention...

http://www.idiotukdriversexposed.com/cy ... on-street/

I looked again and you may be right. His position looks different before and after he passes the pedestrian. But I'm not sure. Bear in mind that if he was braking hard it would have thrown him forward. And if he was riding hands-off earlier he would almost certainly have seen the pedestrian and got ready to brake or swerve. Not many people cycle at speed with no hands and not looking either. I doubt if anyone here would.

It was still a bad turn.

Fin, he could see the Pedestrian ahead; unless he was not concentrating and his mind was elsewhere - likely...

The only thing we don't know is whether the taxi drivers brake lights & rear indicator were faulty. Other than that he should have been braking earlier than when he was in the back of the cab, because the cab was slowing down, he, wasn't. He couldn't go left of the cab because a car was parked there.

Maybe seeing a Taxi driver use his indicator had him flummoxed - joke!

 

[Finial]

Come on Fin - play the white man - just admit there is one - that's all we ask for, just one ... silly person on a cycle (see - I've even not called them pushbikes )

An odd way to put it, but yes of course. Maybe this person was one, maybe not. If not there must be others. There are plenty of witnesses to that. I've seen video of a bike ridden straight into the back of a stationary car, posted as if no driver would do such a thing.

Now how about people admit that bike riders aren't always to blame for accidents?

I can tell you that in all my life, in town and country, I don't remember ever seeing a bike ridden dangerously, except once, very many years ago, when a group of kids came towards me with the ones in front looking over their shoulders. That was back in the days when kids were allowed to ride their bikes on the road. I've never hit a bike, been hit by one or been held up by one for more than a minute. They don't seem to be any problem when I'm driving in town. This doesn't surprise me, because bike riders are very well aware that it hurts when you hit the ground.

I've often seen people driving dangerously, and felt it too. I've said before that I've been hit by a car three times and had many near misses. I see dented cars and broken bollards all over the place. Almost every time I go out I see drivers breaking the law or the highway code. That doesn't surprise me, because drivers feel safe.

I often see bike riders breaking the law and highway code too, though not as many as drivers. It's not necessarily dangerous.

I know that when I'm cycling in traffic I'm more alert than when driving, and constantly expecting some driver to make a mistake. That it's rare to see a bike on an A road, or the North Circular in London. Also that vehicle emissions kill thousands in London and they don't come from bikes.

 

[Lons]

emissions kill thousands in London and they don't come from bikes.

Don't know about that. My brother in law is a keen cyclist and his farts are disgusting. :wink: :lol:

 

[Finial]

Being rather contravertial, if only cyclist actually obeyed the rules of the road, cycle lane's would not be necessary. Absolute menace, I wounder how many anti cyclists would support a campaign to ban cyclists off the road and whether it would achieve the 100K to get debated in parliament. I know I'm totally biased!

Every time someone riding a bike is killed by a lorry in London, there are people like you who blame the victims. They say that if people didn't ride down the inside of the lorry there would be no problem. Here is a comment I've copied from elsewhere. I don't know if what is said is true, but I have no reason to disbelieve it and it wasn't challenged.

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Alan Neve was uninsured, had toilet rolls stacked against his windscreen, had no licence and had jumped a red light.

The lorry driver who killed Catrona Patel was drunk and fiddling with a mobile phone. He had been banned from driving 20 (twenty) times.

The lorry driver who killed Eilidh Cairns had faulty eyesight (the police didn't even bother to discover this until the same driver killed another woman.)

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Brian Dorling turned across his path.

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Svetlana Tereschenko was in an unsafe lorry, failing to indicate and chatting on a mobile. The police decided to charge him with..nothing.

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Deep Lee failed to notice her and smashed into her from behind.

The lorry driver that killed cyclist Andrew McNicoll failed to notice him and side swiped him.

The lorry driver that killed cyclist Daniel Cox was in a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned.

 

[Finial]

Irrespective of whether or not it contributed to the accident, riding his cycle with his hands off the handlebars is irresponsible and can be construed as an offence as he wasn't in proper control of his machine. he should be prosecuted using the video evidence.

You seem very keen to deal with the bike rider, but do you think the evidence is strong enough? What should be done about the taxi driver? Or do you think that turn was acceptable?

 

[clk230]

Irrespective of whether or not it contributed to the accident, riding his cycle with his hands off the handlebars is irresponsible and can be construed as an offence as he wasn't in proper control of his machine. he should be prosecuted using the video evidence.

You seem very keen to deal with the bike rider, but do you think the evidence is strong enough? What should be done about the taxi driver? Or do you think that turn was acceptable?

Generally speaking the person colliding into the other vehicle is at fault due to either driving/riding to quick , leaving to short a stopping distance or not be aware enough.

 

[Benchwayze]

Come on Fin - play the white man - just admit there is one - that's all we ask for, just one ... silly person on a cycle (see - I've even not called them pushbikes )

I often see bike riders breaking the law and highway code too, though not as many as drivers. It's not necessarily dangerous.

That could be because there are so many more cars on the road at any one time than push-bikes. And it IS necessarily dangerous, because it is often unexpected.

Some of the things cyclists think they can get away with, boggle the mind. It's as well for them I am retired! Always looked good on the monthly work return.; drunken cycling, furious and careless cycling; running red lights, cycling on the pavements, cycling across pedestrian crossings and so on ad nauseum.


Incidentally few were more enthusiastic cyclists, than me, until I grew my metal knees.

Lons is on safe ground. Generally speaking, for every motoring offence there is a similar cycling offence. Cycling without using your hands is not having proper control of your machine. Just like driving a car with your feet on the steering wheel would be etc. There might now even be an offence of using a mobile phone whilst cycling; but I am unsure about that!

 

[Finial]

That could be because there are so many more cars on the road at any one time than push-bikes. And it IS necessarily dangerous, because it is often unexpected.

Some of the things cyclists think they can get away with, boggle the mind. It's as well for them I am retired! Always looked good on the monthly work return.; drunken cycling, furious and careless cycling; running red lights, cycling on the pavements, cycling across pedestrian crossings and so on ad nauseum.

Certainly numbers are part of the reason. There are lots of drivers, often in a stationary queue, but just about all exceeding the speed limit at some point in their journeys, very many jumping the lights, driving and parking on the pavements, many texting or phoning, many parking illegally, driving without a licence and insurance, few giving way to pedestrians at junctions (though round here most are good at zebra crossings). All, in the main, for convenience and with impunity.

The two main things that lots of bike riders do illegally is jumping the lights and cycling on the pavement. Both can be dangerous, but don't have to be.

Red light jumping is a factor in only a small proportion of bike accidents. There are some accidents, so clearly they don't always take enough care. Some people probably do it for convenience, others to be safer ahead of the traffic when the lights change. Often they pass the light but don't enter the junction until the lights change. The equivalent of bikes turning left at a red light is allowed in some countries and has been found to improve safety. It seem unlikely to me that many would just go through without checking for opposing traffic, they are like pedestrians in that respect. Would you do it? The primary purpose of traffic lights is to control fast motor traffic, both for safety and for traffic flow reasons. They are much less relevant to pedestrian and bike traffic in most cases. Think of two similar junctions, one with lights and one without. People can turn or cross safely with or without lights provided they wait for gaps in the traffic and don't cut it too fine. In both cases, the need for care is increased when there is a minor and a major road and the traffic on the major road expects to take priority. It's only foot traffic that has to give way at every minor side road.

People normally cycle on the pavement for two reasons. Some at the beginning or end of their journey for convenient access, or to bypass lights, which may be for convenience or for safety. Some do it because they believe the roads are too unsafe. In my experience they do it safely and considerately, and the government advice is that this does not warrant police action. Each one is a person who is not in a car or taking up space on public transport. And pavement cycling is legal on shared paths that may be identical to pedestrian-only ones. Some ride too fast or carelessly on the pavement and a small number of pedestrians are injured and very occasionally killed. Neither the pedestrians nor the bike riders like pavement cycling.

They are also often accused of cycling through zebras or pedestrian lights. I don't often see that, but don't doubt it happens. There is no justification for it. Drivers do it too of course and are rather more dangerous.

I'm not aware of a no-mobiles law for bikes, though it is under consideration in Holland. There is a law against it for drivers, but it's not often enforced.

I would have no objection to police action against lawless bike riders, provided they deal with the more dangerous lawless driving first. But somehow some people see the bikes as more of a problem.

 

[Benchwayze]

You won't get argument from me on the necessity or otherwise of laws. However, laws are there for a reason. If you choose not to obey them, you are the person who has to live with the possible consequences. With disregard for the law you get confusion at best and anarchy at worst. If you don't like motorists who break the law, then you can do something about it. A motorists finds it difficult to chase up a miscreant cyclist. Either way you can't choose the laws you want to live by. In other words, for a 'jobsworth' Police Officer there ain't no middle ground. It isn't for Joe Soap to decide when and where he wishes to conform. It's there for everyone's safety.
I can't really add any more.
Cheers Fin.

John 8)

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"There are lots of drivers, often in a stationary queue, but just about all exceeding the speed limit at some point in their journeys, very many jumping the lights, driving and parking on the pavements, many texting or phoning, many parking illegally, driving without a licence and insurance, few giving way to pedestrians at junctions (though round here most are good at zebra crossings)."
I don't know where you live, but I'm surprised there's anyone left alive there.

 

[Lons]

Irrespective of whether or not it contributed to the accident, riding his cycle with his hands off the handlebars is irresponsible and can be construed as an offence as he wasn't in proper control of his machine. he should be prosecuted using the video evidence.

You seem very keen to deal with the bike rider, but do you think the evidence is strong enough? What should be done about the taxi driver? Or do you think that turn was acceptable?

Yep I do think the evidence is strong enough. Riding with no hands is not acceptable, riding so quickly was a bit stupid to say the least especially if he was concerned for his own safety, that of the pedestrian and other road users. Not saying the taxi driver wasn't completely blameless but all he has are mirrors while the cyclist has unobstructed vision and the driver definitely slowed and signalled..the cyclist had no chance of stopping in time and had he not crashed into the taxi might well have taken out some innocent on the opposite side of the road Bottom line is that the cyclist was an silly person.

Just one incident which you will find hard to justify no matter how much you try, that doesn't say the majority are like that and statistics are statistics which can be cherry picked as desired.

From my experience that many cyclists seem to have a chip on their shoulder and assume they are above the law which unfortunately for drivers and pedestrians is largely true as the chance of them 'being prosecuted is very slim. Until there are regulations introduced which enforces training, registration and insurance for all adult cyclists that isn't going to change and clearly they give responsible cyclists like you a bad name as well.

Anyway it's a pointless debate which is getting nowhere anytime soon, you stick to your bike and I'll enjoy driving my motor which I try to do respectfully and if you find yourself on a bike ride in Northumberland I promise not to run you over, after all I'd hate to have to wash blood off my shiny paintwork. :wink:

 

[Lons]

1. The two main things that lots of bike riders do illegally is jumping the lights and cycling on the pavement. Both can be dangerous, but don't have to be.

2. Red light jumping is a factor in only a small proportion of bike accidents.

3. The primary purpose of traffic lights is to control fast motor traffic, both for safety and for traffic flow reasons. They are much less relevant to pedestrian and bike traffic in most cases.

4. People normally cycle on the pavement for two reasons. Some at the beginning or end of their journey for convenient access, or to bypass lights, which may be for convenience or for safety. Some do it because they believe the roads are too unsafe. In my experience they do it safely and considerately, and the government advice is that this does not warrant police action.

5. I'm not aware of a no-mobiles law for bikes.

1. Point is that both actions are illegal, the fact you think it isn't dangerous is academic. There is near me on th A1, a temporary 40 mph limit on a long length of dual carriageway where in roadworks the traffic is separated by the central reservation and workforce nowhere near and the road which even with a lane closed each way.is wider than normal two way A roads . Stupid, not dangerous but if I exceeded the limits I would most likely get a ticket. As should cyclists if they break the law.

2. Who says? Statistics can be made to do anything.

3. Your point is? Cycles are NOT ALLOWED to cross a red light.

4. Whatever their reasons, they are breaking the law. Police don't enforce because they don't have the resources and the costs don't warrant the punishment if it went to court. Start issuing £50 fixed penalties and it would shoot up as then self financing.

5. It currently is legal for a cyclist to use a mobile phone. Time that was changed without question.