bike lanes again

[RogerS]

Finial's Laws

1) Cyclists are never wrong
2) There is no Rule 2

 

[Finial]

"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.

One day they will all do it simultaneously and then there may not be! But the main death toll in cities comes from air pollution.

 

[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?

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:

I asked if you thought the evidence that he was riding no-hands was sufficient because the video isn't very clear to me. I agree that doing so in traffic is not acceptable. I don't agree the speed was excessive, though he may have been too close for that speed. But it's clear to me that the driver was primarily to blame. If he'd looked carefully, he would have seen the bike and wouldn't have turned. This is not a case of someone running into the back of a vehicle, the taxi suddenly turned into his path. Quite a lot of people seem to think that signalling gives them the right to turn. It doesn't, they have to wait if necessary until the way is clear and not make a manoeuvre that endangers other traffic.

I agree this is a pointless debate because what is needed here is not blaming one group or the other, nor registration etc, but changing the road.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"Quite a lot of people seem to think that signalling gives them the right to turn. It doesn't ..."
What exactly was the driver to do if he wished to turn right? Sit in the middle of the road stationary without signalling until there was a gap?
" I don't agree the speed was excessive, though he may have been too close for that speed."
So the speed was OK, he just should have been doing it somewhere else?
Time to stop digging?

 

[Lons]

I asked if you thought the evidence that he was riding no-hands was sufficient because the video isn't very clear to me. I agree that doing so in traffic is not acceptable. I don't agree the speed was excessive, though he may have been too close for that speed. But it's clear to me that the driver was primarily to blame. If he'd looked carefully, he would have seen the bike and wouldn't have turned. This is not a case of someone running into the back of a vehicle, the taxi suddenly turned into his path. Quite a lot of people seem to think that signalling gives them the right to turn. It doesn't, they have to wait if necessary until the way is clear and not make a manoeuvre that endangers other traffic.

I agree this is a pointless debate because what is needed here is not blaming one group or the other, nor registration etc, but changing the road.

The Taxi didn't stop and therefore didn't pull out from the kerb in front of the cyclist who was following the taxi and therefore responsible for an unsafe overtaking manouvre. If you're going to overtake you have to make damn sure it's safe to do so, he didn't! Cut and dried to blame in my book all day long.
Doesn't matter though does it as we're never going to agree and I'm not going to lose any sleep over that tbh. :wink:

What I said about statistics stands as we can all find some to fit our argument if we can be bothered to look and carefully select. Hopefully they're looking at the problem from more than one direction, especially the movement of buses and HGVs and the use of technology but they need to stop cyclists squeezing up the insides, (and don't say they don't :roll: ). Driving a vehicle in heavy traffic in a busy city, possibly unfamiliar with the are means the driver needs eyes in the back of his head, you can look in the mirrors only every few seconds or you're not watching in front and my experience of cycles wizzing up the inside is that they appear very quickly.

Here's a report in the Times I came across a while ago with headlines suggesting police are cracking down on cyclists but like all stats and headlines it's misleading 'cos though the figure has doubled it's only gone from 52 to 125

Nice legs in the pic though =P~ =P~

Now I just need to do some research on how to organize a petition - subject: " Time to make registration and insurance compulsory for adult cyclists "

 

[iNewbie]

I asked if you thought the evidence that he was riding no-hands was sufficient because the video isn't very clear to me. I agree that doing so in traffic is not acceptable. I don't agree the speed was excessive, though he may have been too close for that speed. But it's clear to me that the driver was primarily to blame. If he'd looked carefully, he would have seen the bike and wouldn't have turned. This is not a case of someone running into the back of a vehicle, the taxi suddenly turned into his path. Quite a lot of people seem to think that signalling gives them the right to turn. It doesn't, they have to wait if necessary until the way is clear and not make a manoeuvre that endangers other traffic.

I agree this is a pointless debate because what is needed here is not blaming one group or the other, nor registration etc, but changing the road.

Will Stills' help, Fin. The third pic shows him finally getting into a freehand 30 degree sharpening position. That jig needs to go, mind...

 

[Finial]

"Quite a lot of people seem to think that signalling gives them the right to turn. It doesn't ..."
What exactly was the driver to do if he wished to turn right? Sit in the middle of the road stationary without signalling until there was a gap?

How about:
Mirror
stop
mirror
signal
look
wait, there's a bike behind
all clear both ways
turn, but keep looking.

I can't believe people here think that turn was OK! Though on second thoughts...

Highway Code:

161.Mirrors. All mirrors should be used effectively throughout your journey. You should
 use your mirrors frequently so that you always know what is behind and to each
side of you
 use them in good time before you signal or change direction or speed
 be aware that mirrors do not cover all areas and there will be blind spots.
You will need to look round and check.
Remember: Mirrors – Signal – Manoeuvre

167.DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For
example
.
..
when a road user is indicating right, ...(which the rider did, he had little choice at that point)
 stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction,
and you intend to turn left (not relevant here but which drivers often fail to do!)



168.Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and
speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who
wish to pass.
...

Turning right
179.Well before you turn right you should
 use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic
behind you
 give a right-turn signal
...
180..... Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn.
.
.
Remember: Mirrors – Signal – Manoeuvre

 

[Finial]

Will Stills' help, Fin. The third pic shows him finally getting into a freehand 30 degree sharpening position. That jig needs to go, mind...

Thanks. I reckon he has very long upper arms and had his hands on the top of the bars...

It does look as if his hands were at his sides. Why someone would do that at any speed or in traffic is beyond me. He lacked control. But the accident wouldn't have happened if the driver had looked more carefully. Or if there were a cycle track.

 

[beech1948]

You can go on discussing till the cows come home. Human Nature will ensure there are as many bad motorists as bad cyclists as bad lorry drivers. The law can not be expected to cull them all as the task is onerous.

A better solution would be to push a pin into a map of every city at whatever is regarded as the center and measure out 3 miles. I can walk 3 miles in 35 minutes ( 67 yrs old).

Then to ban all vehicles propelled by petrol and diesel within this area. This would force a change to walking, running, cycling, or foot powered scooters.

Buses would be banned. Electric slow (10mph) vehicles to carry goods in and out would be used. Trains would be OK both overground and underground.

The local population would be fitter. The obesity cris partially averted.

It just takes some brains and some guts to make it happen.

The rule of the car in cities has become anachronistic and inefficient. Time to ban them from densely populated cities.

 

[Finial]

1. Point is that both actions are illegal, the fact you think it isn't dangerous is academic.

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.

2: The police.
A study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

The figures were slightly higher when the cyclist was killed, but in such cases only the driver's account is available.

The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. This rose to more than one-third in rural areas and to 40% in collisions that took place away from junctions.

3 & 4:
In this country a bike rider has to decide whether to break the law and risk a fine or comply with it and risk death.

Don't you think better infrastructure would be a good idea?

 

[Wuffles]

3 & 4:
In this country a bike rider has to decide whether to break the law and risk a fine or comply with it and risk death.

This excuses cyclists jumping red lights does it? Where do you live, Rio de Janeiro?

I used to chase them down when I rode a motorbike, give them a right mouthful when I lived in the city. Idiots risking themselves and others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RogerS]

.....
Don't you think better infrastructure would be a good idea?

Nah...ban bicycles....much easier and cheaper . :wink:

Regarding obesity, just stop shops like Morrisons selling three packs of Frosties for a fiver.

 

[Finial]

3 & 4:
In this country a bike rider has to decide whether to break the law and risk a fine or comply with it and risk death.

This excuses cyclists jumping red lights does it? Where do you live, Rio de Janeiro?

I used to chase them down when I rode a motorbike, give them a right mouthful when I lived in the city. Idiots risking themselves and others.

I don't know. If they choose the safer option it doesn't surprise me. I'm only guessing at their motives of course, some may do it just to avoid delay, like drivers. Personally I don't think they should have to choose. Did you chase down light-jumping motorists too? Although I have to say I don't think vigilantism is a good idea.

I'm in London and I've never seen a bike going through the red cause significant risk, let alone an accident. People wait for a gap in the traffic, same as they would without the lights.

 

[RogerS]

....
I'm in London and I've never seen a bike going through the red cause significant risk, let alone an accident. People wait for a gap in the traffic, same as they would without the lights.

Perhaps you were oblivious to the pedestrians that had to jump out of the way ?

 

[Lons]

Finial

Those potholes you're digging are getting deeper and deeper and you're going to fall down one if you aren't careful.
Spouting 10 year old "police" statistics isn't much good and as I said we can all find stats that suit our arguments if we can be bothered to keep looking. I have a group of golfing friends all policeman of various ranks and discussed this thread with them at the 19th this afternoon, I'm surprised you didn't hear the laughter as far as London. :lol: Actually what one of them said about you is very definitely not repeatable. :lol:

167.DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example.
..
when a road user is indicating right, ...(which the rider did, he had little choice at that point) stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction,
and you intend to turn left (not relevant here but which drivers often fail to do!)

Interesting that you quote the above as defence when it was the cyclist who was overtaking not the taxi but then again cyclists are above the law it seems.
your point that the rider had little choice but to indicate right is pure bullsh*t, he could have stopped but the reality is that he couldn't because he was travelling too fast, something else you can't accept.

I repeat, the cyclist was the one overtaking, the taxi was moving and signalling, the cyclist was too close, travelling too fast and at fault, accept it and live with it ! :roll:

 

[Finial]

Spouting 10 year old "police" statistics isn't much good

The stats just came up on Google. Can you find some that suit you better? It's very easy to dismiss any statistics that don't support your argument, but unless you come up with others and say why they are more valid, you have nothing but your prejudices to go on, do you?

The opinions of your pals don't surprise me in the slightest, though they might make you take the stats a little more seriously.

The overtaking bit I left in as acknowledgement that the rider was in the wrong. His error was to be too close (and the hands issue), so could not react quickly enough to the dangerous driving. If he had been riding more safely he would have been able to stop in time.

Do you think that turn complied with the highway code? Would it have been acceptable during a driving test? Why do you find it so hard to acknowledge that drivers make mistakes?

 

[Finial]

Perhaps you were oblivious to the pedestrians that had to jump out of the way ?

I hear about that all the time. People claim it's a constant menace. Strangely, I've never had to jump out of the way of a bike rider, nor seen it happen.

 

[Finial]

.....
Don't you think better infrastructure would be a good idea?

Nah...ban bicycles....much easier and cheaper . :wink:

It would be more in the public interest to ban taxis.

 

[RogerS]

Perhaps you were oblivious to the pedestrians that had to jump out of the way ?

I hear about that all the time. People claim it's a constant menace. Strangely, I've never had to jump out of the way of a bike rider, nor seen it happen.

Well, you're a cyclist. I'm a pedestrian and, yes, I have been nearly run over by a bloody cyclist going the wrong way down a one-way street. But I guess it was my fault for not looking as, in your world, cyclists are never to blame.

 

[Finial]

But I guess it was my fault for not looking as, in your world, cyclists are never to blame.

You are imagining that. I said I've never had a problem with bikes. So I don't think it can be as common as people claim. Do you think I'm not a pedestrian? But feel free to call for cycle tracks.

There are people here who blame bike riders for all the accidents they are involved in.