Cyclist plague spreading

estebanrey said:
Read point 1, 15 & 16

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stop
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

The informal term "Failure to stop" doesn't refer to just the obligation to physically stop, you have to exchange details to comply with the law.

If someone doesn't know this then they shouldn't be on the road, no matter what vehicle they're driving.

Regardless of who caused this accident, which is what this thread has derailed into, the driver of the Audi has committed an offence as clearly laid out in the legislation I linked to.
 
Jono8 said:
I am looking forward to road closures for car events and car races. I might take part in those. It would only be fair due to the amount of stupid road closures for cycle races that we get around these parts....
Click to expand...

AFAIK, there has only been one road closure in Surrey this year for a cycling event. A great deal of the revenue from entry fees went into ensuring proper road closures and management. I believe Surrey also has something of an Olympic legacy agreement as the frontrunner to host all the Olympic Road Cycling events.

If you really have issue with it, why don't you lobby your local councillors, rather than moaning about it on an internet forum?
 
4T5 said:
I think a lot of the cause of this kind of thing is down to 2 reasons.

1. Cyclists thinking they have right of passage because they are Eco friendly saving the planet bla bla bla

2. Motorists thinking they have right of passage because they have paid there insurance/Tax/MOT.

In reality it's Motor cyclists that have right of passage as we wear leather look sexy & smell nice.
Click to expand...

Technically it's Cyclists>Motorcyclists>Cars as per vulnerability for right of way. Besides, some of us wear Rapha and look good in lycra ;).
 
All the people banging on about cyclists having insurance, the vast majority of them do.

You can use the public liability section of your home insurance.
 
Was reading Castiel's posts whom I normally agree with, but this time sounds like a he's perfect and it couldn't possibly of happened to him. Then I read Dimple's post and couldn't be more in agreement :-) Castiel appears to be arguing just for the argument unfortunately.

Frankly, we don't know the facts regardless of what's written in the papers.

If every cyclist braked for every time a car passed them 'to let them past' they would never get anywhere. I don't need you to read that and twist those words either. If a car passes and it get's too close or I need to increase distance to be safe, then I will do so, but someone slamming on their brakes immediately after they have passed is not a usual scenario. Of course you have to be prepared for things like this, but there is only so much you can do with reaction times, and being sensible with distance.

In normal circumstances keeping a sensible distance to the vehicle is the thing to do, and not many road users actually do that.

To be honest, I'm not even bothered who's fault it is, I just thought the OP's opinion was ridiculous, and I always get amused by people who think they have more right than other road users.

EDIT: Just noticed this is in GD... why was I expecting reason here... lol.
 
Last edited:
altus said:
There`s the problem, there are a lot of people riding bikes that have no road awareness, time for cycling test`s and 3rd party insurance suc
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the fundamental points of roads, driving licences and rights to use the road...

A road isn't solely for motorised transport (except motorways and certain dual carriageways), heck, it's perfectly legal for me to walk down the middle of a busy A road of I wanted (I wouldn't because many drivers don't look where they're going*...)...

As a motorised vehicle user you need to realise there are plenty of other users with more rights and priority than you, for example pedestrians, horseriders and cyclists. If you can't deal with that then please hand your LICENCE back to the DVLA and stay off the roads.

*I wouldn't because that is irresponsible, responsibility is something that all road (and include paths in roads) users need to have.
 
Last edited:
Dimple said:
This is the first time I've posted this but Castiel you are talking crap.
Click to expand...

No I am not....Each road user is as responsible for their own safety as they are each others. Some road users are more vulnerable than others and need special consideration, but that doesn't negate their own responsibility. You may not agree with my POV that doesn't mean I am talking crap.

I was also talking about the incident in the OP, not about when a driver turns into a cyclist or hits them because they haven't seen them...in which case the fault is clearly the drivers. In the OP however that doesn't appear to have happened and the the cyclist, who may have been travelling too fast, hit a stationary vehicle from behind. That doesn't negate the drivers responsibility for being more aware of the cyclist whist overtaking him either...it simply means that each has a responsibility and one does not negate the other.

I also do not believe that the majority of cyclists in the UK have third party insurance, some do, but as most cyclists are either young or casual commuters, it is unlikely that they have specific insurance for riding their cycle other than perhaps insurance for theft and damage to their cycle through their house insurance.
 
Last edited:
At least one of the problems here is that most posters are taking their normative stances and filling in the missing details of the story in the OP (hey, remember that?) to fit their beliefs.

I'd suggest that it is entirely impossible to have a reasoned argument about cyclists and motorists either in real life or on the internet. I have never seen it and I expect I never will.

For what it's worth - and it's normal in these threads to get into the name calling etc as we've already seen - I'm with Castiel on this one. This doesn't lift this thread above a one star effort for me though; none of these cyclist/motorist threads can or will.
 
Scougar said:
Was reading Castiel's posts whom I normally agree with, but this time sounds like a he's perfect and it couldn't possibly of happened to him. Then I read Dimple's post and couldn't be more in agreement :-) Castiel appears to be arguing just for the argument unfortunately.
Click to expand...

It has happened to me, twice..once it was totally my fault as I wasn't paying full attention and listening to my ipod..the car in front broke very hard as someone ran across the road in front of him and I went straight into him...there was no damage to me or the car and I just needed to fix a slightly buckled wheel. The second time I was cut up by a driver trying to force his way through a narrow carriageway, I didn't brake in time and fell off avoiding him..this was his fault for being a div and not waiting until it was safer to over take, and it was also partially my fault for not braking sooner when it was clear he was forcing his way through regardless.

Sometimes accidents happen, but rarely are they entirely unavoidable and if you hit a vehicle as opposed to the vehicle hitting you then you do have some responsibility for that, perhaps not all the responsibility, but at least some.

Things like a driver overtaking and then immediately turning left (without indication or without due care) is not the same as what I was saying about the incident in the OP...in that case the vehicle is colliding with you, not the other way around. And I agree that some road users require special consideration, this includes Cyclists and Pedestrians (it also includes large vehicles such as Buses and Lorries, which some cyclists seem to think they can pass on the inside and not risk getting hurt).

I am not really arguing for the sake of it, but I do think that their is another perspective with regards personal responsibility that needs to be considered here.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Huddy said:
As i cyclist, I am for this. Not necessarily a test, but some kind of valid CBT like we have for mopeds, compulsory helmets and 3rd party insurance.

I did collide into a parked car a few years ago. I fully accepted liability and proceeding where amicable. I actually claimed on my Personal Household insurance under public liability. It might be worth checking your policy if you have this if you're a homeowner and a cyclist.
Click to expand...

Does that include the 10 year old cycling to town, or the 7 year old cycling behind their parents on an afternoon out? Or even the 15 year old cycling to school?

Should we ban people under the age of 17 cycling on the road? How about ban people from walking on roads without a licence? Where do we stop?

I agree though that cycling proficiency should be pushed more (I was taught it at the end of primary school, is that still standard?) but I also think making that sort of thing compulsary wouldn't work. What makes far more sense is including a mandatory cycling element in driver training. Having to do a certain amount of cycling before you are allowed out in a car on the road, basically a way of learning the rules of the road and understanding other road users before you get into a large metal box flying along at 70mph...
 
Most of the time cyclists are fine, I cycle

But I'm sure those who have driven in Cambridge know what how horrible it is to drive when cyclists think they own the road

Only last week I was driving in the centre of Cambridge and was going left on a green light when a cyclists just cut across from my left diagonally over a pedestrian crossing, I had to brake fairly quickly.

Horrible town to drive in
 
Castiel said:
That pretty much the shape of it....awareness and anticipation.
Click to expand...

Castiel, I don't normally resort to things like this, but in this case...

You're full of it.

You're actually saying that it is legal, and I'm not 100% 'at fault', if I overtake somebody, then cut in without leaving sufficient space between us, then slam my brakes on.

Tell me what the driver/rider following can do in this situation? Do you automatically slam your brakes on when you see someone overtaking you? Because that's about all you could do to prevent a collision if the overtaking vehicle wanted to cause one.
 
Dimple said:
This is the first time I've posted this but Castiel you are talking crap.
Come and commute 1 day in my cleats and see the problems I have to face daily here in Stoke.
At least once a week some idiot will left hook me, this means a driver puts his foot down to get past and then immediately turns left - and no, my experience hasn't stopped me from hitting them.
Perhaps you would now say that since the driver didn't hit me then he must have judged it right?
After 1 year of commuting I have now had to change my attitude when I cycle and the simple rule I go by is 'I don't belong on the road'.
If I see a motorist at the junction of a side street (left or right) I now make the presumption it is their right to pull straight out on me even if I'm doing 30 mph.
if I see a motorist turning right in front of me it is their right of way and I'm expected to slow down if they just go.
It's an awful attitude to have but it's keeping me safe knowing I have no rights as a cyclist.
HOWEVER, no amount of experience can ever make me judge a car that speeds past me and suddenly turns in on me, if I stop/start for every car that speeds past me I won't get very far.

And OP, I agree that weekend cyclists may be a fad but some of us do it daily to commute to work.
Mame will back me up when I say that parking at the place I work is next to impossible and even if I could I am around 15 minutes quicker on my bike.
Click to expand...

That is such a bad way of thinking about it, although I agree with the premise. Whenever I'm on the road, be it in a car or on a bike I always assume all other road users are blind, stupid murderes... Bit harsh but there are way too many stupid drivers that don't observe and drive too fast. Think they are aiming to kill you and it'll save you a crash or two...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom