I'm a cyclist.

[Jacob]

I'm never getting in my car again. In fact I'm never leaving the house. I'm going to sit in a big lead-lined box in a locked room with the lights off and the curtains closed. Let's see how that plays out with those suicidal pedestrians.

They'll be banging on the doors like the zombies in "Night of the Living Dead"!

 

[Lons]

Just wait until the no win no fee lawyers get hold of this and the unscrupulous pedestrians and cyclists cotton on to "free" money. All our vehicles have front and rear dashcams and for their own protection I'd suggest all drivers should have them, I'd go so far as to say they should by now be standard equipment.

I own and occasionally ride a bike but am of the opinion that every cyclist over the age of 16 should be required to have 3rd party insurance cover and cycling proficiency tests should be part of school curriculum.

 

[rafezetter]

Leaving the gender politics dog-whistle to one side, what you've posted simply isn't true. If someone steps out into the road without due care and attention, and there was no reasonable way you could have avoided hitting them, then you cannot be found guilty. However, if you are driving in an area where you reasonably believe that pedestrians will leap into the path of your car without giving any prior indication then you should be reducing your speed, and as an advanced driver you must be well aware of that.

If you genuinely feel that you can't drive along the road you've mentioned safely and without undue risk to the pedestrians in the area then you have a duty of care to avoid that road - as an advanced driver you should know not to take risks you cannot manage. Out of interest do you have the accident stats for that road?

Your proposed bet with Jacob is ridiculous and counter to all good defensive driving strategies - you are demanding that he drive unsafely by counting pedestrians rather than carrying out correct observation and control.

Nope, I was merely pointing out that my previous point about not being able to give attention to every.single.pedestrian was entirely valid for the very reasons you are pointing out - to whit "I'm too busy driving" - so him saying I should no longer drive on the roads, because I cannot give 100% attention to every.single.pedestrian is utterly irrational, and exactly counter to safe driving as you state.

as to the rest - yes of course, I do and I do.

Regarding "cannot be found guilty" for it - well I have a previous court case and an overheard statement from a policeman saying "we're going to make an example of him" to the assembled witnesses for the prosecution outside the court room (heard by my friend while I was inside), begs to differ. All the witnesses had clearly been coached and when I asked for an extention for the case being heard that day because my solicitor did not turn up, I was refused, despite the prosecution having had THREE and delayed the case for TWO YEARS; so I was forced to defend myself in court, against what I found out later to be an extremely biased police officer and coached witnesses.

It wasnt until years later I found out all of that was grounds for a mistrial and have the whole thing thrown out and the hefty £1500 fine (1997) repaid to me.

Without dashcam footage it's your word against thiers and I have absolutely zero faith in the honesty or "justice" or the legal system, based on that and one other case brought against me 35 years ago with police lying in court about my carrying a fishing fillet knife I had just got from a friends whom had sharpened it for me (long before I knew how); some curtain twitcher had seen him giving it to me (in a scabbard), called the police and then the police claimed I had resisted arrest (I hadn't but they were plain clothed and had not initially identified themselves and it was after 5pm in december) and I was going to stab someone with it, they didn't say who or where or why, but merely that "I would" based on no more evidence than carrying a knife automatically means I must be going to stab someone (remember this was 35 years ago long before the rise in knife crime), and I with no prior police contact of any kind, I was fresh out of boarding school and lived right near the River Mole which has good fishing. Even with a statement given by my friend, that he had sharpened the knofe and regularly went fishing with me, oh and that I had a licence to fish in a private lake nearby was all dismissed as not relevant, they still pursued the case to a court hearing, which was summarily dismissed after all statements had been made in about 2 minutes flat - but it got that far (and I got an absolute beating from my father for "bringing the family name into disrepute").

Don't put your faith in the legal system to be true to justice or "fairness" it's a complete crapshoot and now at least the police as a group of people are finally being seen and proven to be just as fallible as everyone else. I don't hate the institution, actually thought about joining myself after my own personal childhood history, but I'm also very aware of the often overlooked, sometimes dangerous foibles of people in it.

No idea of the accident stats, but any stats dated more than a week or two would be invalid anyway because the new code alteration giving pedestrians right of way regardless has only just come into effect.

Just to make sure for those in any doubt, I am not and never would advocate dangerous or even careless driving, I don't drink ANY alcohol when driving, and I'm always the designated driver when with other people, mostly because my personal tolerance for alcohol is low, always has been. I rarely drive over 70 or even 67, because the time saved even over a couple hundred mile journey is a LOT less than most people realise - 5 minutes to be precise and the cost saved in diesel is noticable, roughly 10 MPG for my car.

I've made my viewpoint clear and frankly anyone who even slightly suggests that pedestrians should not have to apply personal responsibility and awareness while near a road is someone to avoid.

 

[rafezetter]

Just wait until the no win no fee lawyers get hold of this and the unscrupulous pedestrians and cyclists cotton on to "free" money. All our vehicles have front and rear dashcams and for their own protection I'd suggest all drivers should have them, I'd go so far as to say they should by now be standard equipment.

I own and occasionally ride a bike but am of the opinion that every cyclist over the age of 16 should be required to have 3rd party insurance cover and cycling proficiency tests should be part of school curriculum.

LOL Lons that's almost word for word what a few people have said elsewhere about the lawyers, and you're not wrong either, I'd take that bet. 3 months maybe less before the adverts start in the UK.

 

[Jacob]

Just wait until the no win no fee lawyers get hold of this and the unscrupulous pedestrians and cyclists cotton on to "free" money.

Yes they'll be lining up to throw themselves in front of cars - or more likely pushing their elderly relatives in that direction.
You won't be able to reverse away they'll be piling up behind you and banging on your rear window. It'll be hell out there! 100% irate person nightmare!

......

I own and occasionally ride a bike but am of the opinion that every cyclist over the age of 16 should be required to have 3rd party insurance cover

Damage incurred by cyclists is so minimal that it wouldn't be worth the collection of a few pennies per person

and cycling proficiency tests should be part of school curriculum.

They are already. Should also be made compulsory for all new vehicle licensees too

 

[Jacob]

......... anyone who even slightly suggests that pedestrians should not have to apply personal responsibility and awareness while near a road .....

But nobody has ever suggested that and nobody is ever likely to are they?
PS just occurred to me - have people been reading some sort of joke version of the Highway Code? Viz Magazine?

 

[Sporky McGuffin]

Just to make sure for those in any doubt, I am not and never would advocate dangerous or even careless driving

Your proposed challenge was unquestionably dangerous. Are we to take it that it was just internet bluster?

 

[Lons]

I said
Just wait until the no win no fee lawyers get hold of this and the unscrupulous pedestrians and cyclists cotton on to "free" money. All our vehicles have front and rear dashcams and for their own protection I'd suggest all drivers should have them, I'd go so far as to say they should by now be standard equipment.

I own and occasionally ride a bike but am of the opinion that every cyclist over the age of 16 should be required to have 3rd party insurance cover and cycling proficiency tests should be part of school curriculum.

Yes they'll be lining up to throw themselves in front of cars - or more likely pushing their elderly relatives in that direction.

You silly person It's very easy to bash into or ride a bike into the side of a car without hurting yourself, the fraudsters are doing it already from bikes and motorcycles as many dashcam videos have shown and it seems you haven't had any bodywork repairs done or you would know exactly how expensive it can be to repair those bashes and scrapes, Of course the perpetrators will instantly claim the usual hard to dispute injuries such as back ache and the mental anguish of " almost being killed so can't sleep for the nightmares". You don't live in the real world and you're still thinking in old pennies rather than current pounds sterling.

" Damage incurred by cyclists is so minimal that it wouldn't be worth the collection of a few pennies per person"

Codswallop. A metal or carbon cycle can inflict serious damage to car panels as well as human flesh.

"They are already.

I think you're wrong though stand to be corrected as I haven't researched it but from memory the cycle proficiency test I referred to was dumped at least 15 years ago and the current bykeability scheme whilst being available in schools isn't compulsory, I said that IMO it should be!

"Should also be made compulsory for all new vehicle licensees too"

It is but in case you don't know it's called driving lessons followed by a test, does that help with your lack of information.

 

[Jacob]

.......... It's very easy to bash into or ride a bike into the side of a car without hurting yourself, the fraudsters are doing it already

How would they make a profit from that?

.......A metal or carbon cycle can inflict serious damage to car panels as well as human flesh.

Even if true it hardly ever happens. But it isn't true anyway. Bike /car collisions can destroy bikes and injure the riders, leaving the car with just light scratches and th driver untouched

......

"Should also be made compulsory for all new vehicle licensees too"

It is but in case you don't know it's called driving lessons followed by a test, does that help with your lack of information.

I meant that cycling lessons should be compulsory for vehicle drivers too.

Strewth you really got a big chip on your shoulder about bikes haven't you! Have you had a particularly awful childhood experience with them?
Maybe you should get together Rafezetter and alternate as driver - rear gunner?

 

[Lons]

How would they make a profit from that?Even if true it hardly ever happens. But it isn't true anyway. Bike /car collisions can destroy bikes and injure the riders, leaving the car with just light scratches and th driver untouchedI meant that cycling lessons should be compulsory for vehicle drivers too.

Strewth you really got a big chip on your shoulder about bikes haven't you! Have you had a particularly awful childhood experience with them?
Maybe you should get together Rafezetter and alternate as driver - rear gunner?

They can make money through fraudulent insurance claims, not difficult unless the driver has dash cam footage to disprove it. If you don't believe that then find someone in the insurance industry and they'll explain it in simple terms even you can understand.

Light scratches, you live in an alternate universe pal! I suggest you scrape your bike along the side of you car and take it to a repair shop for an estimate, a proper repair shop which would bill the insurance company not your mate in the pub who owns a spray gun.
Nobody said anything about the drivers being hurt.

Why should cycle lessons be compulsory for drivers who may never ride a bike, ludicrous, all drivers need is the general knowledge and commonsense to observe and take the correct action. Using your logic, all cyclists perhaps should be forced to take driving lessons maybe something to put forward for your next political campaign, might even get you a couple of extra votes. Maybe if your party offered to pay for lessons and tests from the public purse.

You have a vivid imagination or more likely just trolling again so let me put you straight. I have no chip on my shoulder about cyclists, I am one at least when the weather is half decent and rode a bike without incident throughout the whole of my childhood, I had to take a cycling proficiency test before the school would allow me to ride there.
You're up to your old tricks Jacob, have you been taking side shoe dancing lessons again?

 

[Jacob]

They can make money through fraudulent insurance claims, not difficult unless the driver has dash cam footage to disprove it. .......

Insurance claims for what? Having scratched their own bikes?
Wot I'd attack you car with my bike and claim it was your fault and want money for my scratches? Or a puncture? Or broken spoke? Or a lost lamp battery?
Doesn't sound like a get rich scheme.
Not convinced, but this thread has obviously gone into the twilight zone and unlikely to emerge, so don't bother to reply!
Maybe you should talk to Rafezateer he seems to be in the same boat?
Hope that helps!

 

[Lons]

Insurance claims for what? Having scratched their own bikes?
Wot I'd attack you car with my bike and claim it was your fault and want money for my scratches? Or a puncture? Or broken spoke? Or a lost lamp battery?
Doesn't sound like a get rich scheme.
Not convinced, but this thread has obviously gone into the twilight zone and unlikely to emerge, so don't bother to reply!
Maybe you should talk to Rafezateer he seems to be in the same boat?
Hope that helps!

Dozy person, have you not had your Horlics yet tonight?
If you read posts before replying you would realise I stated examples of claims that are not minor repairs to cycles but the very substantial claims that can be made for difficult to disprove physical injuries such as strained backs and mental anguish which are already being fraudulently used in car accidents, buses and even people tripping over pavements, it's big business and costs insurance companies, ultimately the paying customers, £millions.

Does that help you to understand or is it still a bit too difficult for you to comprehend?

 

[Sporky McGuffin]

difficult to disprove physical injuries such as strained backs and mental anguish

Fortunately our legal system - libel and slander aside - requires the complainant to prove the claim, not the defendant to disprove it.

 

[Jacob]

Interesting stuff here When Can a Cyclist Claim Against a Motorist?

 

[paulrbarnard]

Dozy person, have you not had your Horlics yet tonight?
If you read posts before replying you would realise I stated examples of claims that are not minor repairs to cycles but the very substantial claims that can be made for difficult to disprove physical injuries such as strained backs and mental anguish which are already being fraudulently used in car accidents, buses and even people tripping over pavements, it's big business and costs insurance companies, ultimately the paying customers, £millions.

Does that help you to understand or is it still a bit too difficult for you to comprehend?

Scam artists aside, and I’m sure we are not including them in the debate, it is HIGHLY likely that a cyclist will suffer a number of those injuries if hit by a car or indeed if they hit a car. As to who is at fault that is the reason a lot of cyclists wear helmet cams today. Anyone worried about being taken by a faker or scammer should get a dash cam.
We are talking about very different things though. In a car it is a risk to your pocket, which is trivial when compared to physical injury or even death for a cyclist or pedestrian.
There are idiots who shouldn’t be let out unsupervised both riding cycles and driving cars. The risk to yourself from meeting one of those is inordinately higher if they are driving a car.

 

[doctor Bob]

Strewth you really got a big chip on your shoulder about bikes haven't you! Have you had a particularly awful childhood experience with them?
Maybe you should get together Rafezetter and alternate as driver - rear gunner?

Here we go again ................. same out pattern. I thought with age came wisdom.

 

[TRITON]

I'd a dedicated jogger come across my path at at junction in a urban area- no shops. I shout 'nearly hit you you%$^$£$,@*^&', he shouted back about right of way.
He didnt stop, he basically just continued across the road like he was still on the pavement and did so without looking, so effectively gave me little chance to stop, judge the situation, wave him over etc.
But fair enough. I suppose when he's sitting in his wheelchair or hospital bed in agony, he can give himself a big thumbs up that he had right of way.

 

[TRITON]

Even if true it hardly ever happens. But it isn't true anyway. Bike /car collisions can destroy bikes and injure the riders, leaving the car with just light scratches and the driver untouched

Er....

 

[John Brown]

Here we go again ................. same out pattern. I thought with age came wisdom.

Why? In my opinion he's making sense. As far as I can see, the new Highway Code is just formalising what most responsible motorists already do automatically, i.e., try not to run down pedestrians or cyclists. Sail before steam.
I really don't see why people are so angry about it.


I don't necessarily agree with everything Jacob says, but on the other hand I don't necessarily disagree with everything he says either. Both strategies seem strangely pointless to me.

 

[John Brown]

Er....

Do they use the UK Highway Code in Italy?