Cyclist plague spreading

[neil_g]

Wet or dry doesn't make a difference to the equation.



Brakes don't come into it, rim or disk brakes will stop a bike wheel completely in my experience at 20mph, the size of the wheel/tyre makes the difference.

?? I'm not sure what you're saying here.

You're saying rim brakes are equal in stopping power to 4 pot disks? And that wet Tarmac has no impact?

I'd say brakes and tyres affect cycle braking. The power to stop the wheels turning and sufficient grip on the road.

 

[physichull]

Wet or dry doesn't make a difference to the equation.

I can tell you from experience, from only today, that it bloody well does!

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I can tell you from experience, from only today, that it bloody well does!

And I will +1 that because I had to make sure on my way home tonight that I braked way before I normally do in the dry.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

?? I'm not sure what you're saying here.

You're saying rim brakes are equal in stopping power to 4 pot disks? And that wet Tarmac has no impact?

I'd say brakes and tyres affect cycle braking. The power to stop the wheels turning and sufficient grip on the road.

No, what he's saying is even cheap rim brakes have adequate power to stop a wheel dead - try jamming on the front brake on any bike and see what happens

The factor that decreases stopping distance on a cycle is the tire and it's grip with the road - not the strength of the actual brakes.

 

[oli collett]

No, what he's saying is even cheap rim brakes have adequate power to stop a wheel dead - try jamming on the front brake on any bike and see what happens

The factor that decreases stopping distance on a cycle is the tire and it's grip with the road - not the strength of the actual brakes.

Try slamming on rim brakes on a wet rim. Even worse if its carbon.

 

[holymonk]

Castiel always talks crap, his obituary will reference the years of pointless drivel posts on the OCUK forum....its not a good look.

Fact is, if everyone took the attitude to suddenly brake through malice to attempt to cause an accident, regardless of the stopping distances or blaming person who hits them. Its going to increase the chances of an accident.

We are all human, not robots. Its made worse by people with a mentality like this.

I ride a road bike and I drive a car, there are a lot of idiots in cars, and there are also a lot of idiots on bikes.

 

[koolpc]

Cycling behind the car it is the responsibility of the cyclist, He should have been more careful and be aware of what can happen infront on him.

Seen many a cyclist speeding into traffic as if they are invincible only to come a cropper!

What would the rules be if it were a car that had ploughed into the back of him?

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I ride a road bike and I drive a car, there are a lot of idiots in cars, and there are also a lot of idiots on bikes.

But still according to Castiel if a car overtakes you and suddenly brakes hard to park on double yellows then it is partly your fault because you wasn't paying attention enough.

 

[koolpc]

But still according to Castiel if a car overtakes you and suddenly brakes hard to park on double yellows then it is partly your fault because you wasn't paying attention enough.

Can you believe that the driver of said car actually did that?

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Can you believe that the driver of said car actually did that?

Absolutely 100% yes.
At least once a week I will be left hooked.

(I obviously don't know if the said driver did it or everybody is lying but it most definitely happens)

 

[Castiel]

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.

I'm not actually saying that, so your post is pretty redundant.

 

[Castiel]

But still according to Castiel if a car overtakes you and suddenly brakes hard to park on double yellows then it is partly your fault because you wasn't paying attention enough.

If a car overtakes you and then pulls up to park and you do not stop then it is partially your fault...pay attention to the vehicle in front, assume that he will do something daft and keep a safe distance.

What if the car suddenly brakes hard to avoid a child or animal running into the road...is it still his fault that a cyclist behind him cannot stop in time because they were either not paying enough attention to the road ahead or travelling too fast for the road conditions?

The point is that I wasn't saying that the driver doesn't have some responsibility for the incident, I was however saying that the Cyclist is not entirely non-blameworthy at the same time.

 

[Gixer]

Can you believe that the driver of said car actually did that?

Is there any reason to think that he didn't do that?

The fact that the driver said 'sorry I didn't see you' is pretty much showing the driver admits he was at fault. If I was a driver that had pulled up appropriately and then had a cyclist cycle into me I would most certainly not be saying that to them!

 

[Castiel]

From what I can find british cycling has 75,000 members, that is 75,000 cyclists with £10million third party liability insurance.

Assuming that every single member has one of the membership classes that has that liability included in the subscription. I would hazard a guess that a good portion of that membership are of the cheaper bronze level which does not have such provision.

I would also say that 75000 cyclists is a very small percentage of the total cyclists in the UK. (given that around 43% of the population have access to a bicycle and around 3,000,000 people use one more than 3 times a week).

In addition, if they're bike has insurance for theft and damage through their house insurance, then from that statement they have home insurance. As far as I am aware most home insurance policy's provide liability cover which could be used in the event of a collision.

House Insurance does not provide third party indemnity for cyclists by default...it can cover the loss or damage to your cycle only.

Even if a cyclist does have no insurance cover whatsoever, they are not absolved from any liability they just don't have a company to pay whatever they owe. Any damage would have to come out of their pocket. That fact the cyclists generally cause far less damage then cars in a collision is probably why insurance has not been made a requirement for cycling yet.

Indeed, and I have already stated that the driver of the vehicle had a legal duty to supply his insurance details at the side of the road...that doesn't automatically make him liable for the actual incident however. It doesn't free the cyclist from his own personal responsibility either, even if the driver was also at fault.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

If a car overtakes you and then pulls up to park and you do not stop then it is partially your fault...pay attention to the vehicle in front, assume that he will do something daft and keep a safe distance.

What if the car suddenly brakes hard to avoid a child or animal running into the road...is it still his fault that a cyclist behind him cannot stop in time because they were either not paying enough attention to the road ahead or travelling too fast for the road conditions?

Two different scenarios above and you know it.

One is an impatient driver speeding past and then left hooking because he's seen a cash machine and the other would be the cyclists fault because he's already behind the car anyway.

 

[Saundie]

On the plus side, as the cost of motoring continues to rise we'll see an increase in the number of cyclists on the road. Eventually we'll reach the tipping point where cyclists outnumber motorists, and then on to the inevitable time where the motoring plague is finally eradicated. It shall be a joyful day for all concerned.

 

[Castiel]

Absolutely agree with this, and in an ideal world we wouldn't have to worry about adjusting our own course and speed to make up for other peoples mistakes because they wouldn't happen.

Unfortunately we live in a world where people drive like morons. It is an absolute necessity of good roadcraft to be aware of situations happening around you, even before they've started to develop.

Sadly a lot of cyclists seem to have the attitude that because that car has done something bad to them, they shouldn't HAVE to make up for it, and that is when you have an incident. Maybe they shouldn't HAVE to, but they certainly NEED to.

When I am overtaken on my bike I have my head on a swivel, my hand covering the brake lever and anticipate the left hook. The car shouldn't be in your peripheral vision, you should know where it is. To just carry on regardless, listening to an iPod (really?!), hoping that the motorist clears you is just stupid and asking for an accident, whatever mode of transport you're operating.

This is exactly the point I am making.

 

[Castiel]

Two different scenarios above and you know it.

One is an impatient driver speeding past and then left hooking because he's seen a cash machine and the other would be the cyclists fault because he's already behind the car anyway.

I agree, (aside from the point that the incident in the OP doesn't state that the driver turned into the cyclist, but the cyclist rose into the rear of the stationary car) but the principle regarding the personal responsibility of the cyclist is the same...whether the driver is driving without due care or not, the cyclist (or anyone for that matter) also has a responsibility to his own safety, this includes, as BigDannyO has said, anticipating the road ahead and what other road users may or may not do. You have said yourself that Drivers "left hooking" is common, so surely you should be doubly aware of the possibility when being overtaken and ride accordingly.

 

[Nexus]

Assuming that every single member has one of the membership classes that has that liability included in the subscription. I would hazard a guess that a good portion of that membership are of the cheaper bronze level which does not have such provision.

No, 'Ride' Membership level makes up the largest number of memberships which does give liability cover. It's specifically aimed and marketed at commuters and general riders as well.

Bronze is actually the lowest subscribed level because the fact is that the Race level memberships really only have two reasons going for them as to why you would choose it over 'Ride' membership. Those are that you get a racing licence, and if you have gold membership, you get a significant discount on bike property and racing insurance. Bronze is largely useless because you can't get a full racing licence with it.

I would also say that 75000 cyclists is a very small percentage of the total cyclists in the UK. (given that around 43% of the population have access to a bicycle and around 3,000,000 people use one more than 3 times a week).

That may well be the case, but as somebody has already pointed out in the thread, as much as some Motorists seem to paint Cyclists as doing nothing but going around damaging things, the reality is that the bike always comes off worse in any accident, whether with a car, or static object belonging to the council. If this was something that was happening regularly and was really a big issue, mandatory insurance would be required, yet it isn't.

 

[Fuzz]

I agree, (aside from the point that the incident in the OP doesn't state that the driver turned into the cyclist, but the cyclist rose into the rear of the stationary car) but the principle regarding the personal responsibility of the cyclist is the same...whether the driver is driving without due care or not, the cyclist (or anyone for that matter) also has a responsibility to his own safety, this includes, as BigDannyO has said, anticipating the road ahead and what other road users may or may not do. You have said yourself that Drivers "left hooking" is common, so surely you should be doubly aware of the possibility when being overtaken and ride accordingly.

So are you saying a cyclist should brake every time a car over takes them in case they get left hooked?

Normally cyclists get left hooked at road junctions, not some random spot on the road that happens to have a cash point near it.

It would be no different to me overtaking you in my car and slamming the anchors on because I wanted to turn into a driveway.
You wouldn't have anticipated the retardedness of that action and you wouldn't slow down in any anticipation of "going into the back of someone" that is currently ACCELERATING past you..

Of course you have a responsibility to be aware of dangers while out on the bike but avoiding such ******** can be somewhat more difficult.