Soldato
Thank you for making what you are thinking clear, because it wasn't coming across the same way as above previously.
Cyclist plague spreading
- Thread starter altus
- Start date
Thank you for making what you are thinking clear, because it wasn't coming across the same way as above previously.
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.
Your trolling posts are boring. Doesn't stop you posting though.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
He's right though and you're no better and, for completeness, nor am I.
It's just <pre-defined stance> versus <pre-defined stance> over and over and over and over again.
Caporegime
Ha! 
NO IT'S NOT
NO IT'S NOT
Well to be specific, this thread started out as an anti cyclist thread in sentiment rather than a whiny cyclist thread. Naturally it's GD and an internet forum so descended into the usual crap.[FnG]magnolia;24937327 said:
Besides I don't "troll" one side or the other. When I'm stupid enough to post in the monthly anti cyclist threads it is with, usually, a balanced point of view as both a motorist and cyclist.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,108
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 1,531
From what I can find british cycling has 75,000 members, that is 75,000 cyclists with £10million third party liability insurance.
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.
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.
this thread is a mess, i've had a very similar situation to the accident described, where i've been in the right lane so I can turn right ahead, an irate driver overtakes and pulls in <1metre in front and brakes, 'to teach you a lesson'
how can that be the cyclists fault?, its the same as a car pulling out of a sideroad right infront of you at the very last second
how can that be the cyclists fault?, its the same as a car pulling out of a sideroad right infront of you at the very last second
Soldato
But if you hit them regardless its your fault.
The rule strikes me as idiotic but that's how it is, if its a **** rule for motorists should be the same for cyclists.
no its not. i had a guy pull out of a junction infront of me (both in a car) and i t-boned him. was a 100% claim on his insurance.
Why has the numberplate been obscured in the photograph? Seems very dodgy to me.
Bicycles stop a lot faster than cars, p = mv so for any given velocity bikes have way, way less momentum than a car and so stop much faster even with the reduced braking force that 2 small tyres have compared to 4 wide ones with a lot more pressure on them.
Bicycles stop a lot faster than cars, p = mv so for any given velocity bikes have way, way less momentum than a car and so stop much faster even with the reduced braking force that 2 small tyres have compared to 4 wide ones with a lot more pressure on them.
Last edited:
Soldato
[DOD]Asprilla;24936184 said:
And that stopping distance increases massively in the wet.
Soldato
And what about in the wet?
Man of Honour
I've just been past the Britannia Stadium Stadium and there's only one reporter so not that big a story.
It might not be for this incident either.
I actually rode slow past him and the cameraman in hope he would call me over to ask my opinion but it didn't happen.
It might not be for this incident either.
I actually rode slow past him and the cameraman in hope he would call me over to ask my opinion but it didn't happen.
Bikes with rim brakes don't even stop faster than a car in the dry (ones with disk brakes might but it may also involve a trip over the handlebars).
Also you have to keep your wheels and balance under control when stopping sharply on a bike (+ unclipping to avoid the inevitable sideways fall with cleats). I don't think these issue apply to car drivers who just have to jam the midde pedal down hard to come to a halt.
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.
but you cant brake as hard, as your wheels will skid, and if you so much as turn the bars a smidge you're going to do a flying dismount.
because the paper/others aren't allowed to publish random peoples plates
complete stopping your wheel at 20mph would definitely make your braking distance longer than a car....
Last edited: