RogerS
Established Member
Finial's Laws
1) Cyclists are never wrong
2) There is no Rule 2
1) Cyclists are never wrong
2) There is no Rule 2
phil.p":ehwh8m81 said:"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.
Lons":162xymmn said: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 *****.Finial":162xymmn said:Lons":162xymmn said: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?
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:
Finial":3fuzf0kg said: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.
Finial":2k10l023 said: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.p":1tizdpbr said:"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?
iNewbie":2rnvkzjd said:Will Stills' help, Fin. The third pic shows him finally getting into a freehand 30 degree sharpening position. That jig needs to go, mind...
Lons":1n3sf6fc said: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.
Finial":3fh3k3ei said: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.
Finial":3ntjmrcq said:.....
Don't you think better infrastructure would be a good idea?
Wuffles":15sfedb5 said:Finial":15sfedb5 said: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.
Finial":3nnonnm8 said:....
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.
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.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!)
Lons":1g6duffa said:Spouting 10 year old "police" statistics isn't much good
RogerS":2f0idfp8 said:Perhaps you were oblivious to the pedestrians that had to jump out of the way ?
RogerS":2d3tzpf5 said:Finial":2d3tzpf5 said:.....
Don't you think better infrastructure would be a good idea?
Nah...ban bicycles....much easier and cheaper . :wink:
Finial":3erc0lhq said:RogerS":3erc0lhq said: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.
RogerS":tez09hk6 said:But I guess it was my fault for not looking as, in your world, cyclists are never to blame.
Enter your email address to join: