A cyclist's rant to incompetent road users...

sequence

esmerobbo wrote: »

If your 65 year old woman in poor health one enough.

Well fortunately, we don't make too many laws based on one persons bad experience.

esmerobbo

"Yes but the point is, you're talking about an EXTREMELY isolated incident, especially when compared to the amount of injuries and damaged caused by cars on an annual basis."

The difference being most cars are insured against causing third party damage.

"Well fortunately, we don't make too many laws based on one persons bad experience"

So there has never been more then one?

timbo58

sequence wrote: »

Haha your right There's a reason why they sell them without pedal I'm sure.

Sorry for the mis-information !

The higher quality bikes have different sorts of pedals to match your cycling shoes that clip into specific types (ie mine are Look Keo types) hence the reason high end bikes come without pedals.

HTH!

Good thread though: as a cyclist and motorcyclist (as well as a car driver) I have often thought what a good idea it would be for this '2 wheeler awareness' to be part of the driving test at least.

I did once think it would be a good idea for all car drivers to pass a MC test and ride for a year before doing the car test, but have been swayed by the arguments against this!

rev_henry

Strider590 wrote: »

I find it concerning that professional drivers (taxi, bus, truck etc) don't know the law in their local town. I can see lot's of cyclists taking abuse wrongfully because of this combination of ignorance and lack of education

I quite agree, the worst drivers I encounter are, in order,
1. minicab drivers, usually because they double park on cycle lanes and ignore ASLs,
2. buses, because they cut across cycle lanes and ignore ASLs - Stagecoach tend to be much worse than the other companies round here for this,
3. black cabs, because they ignore ASLs.
And ALL the above edge forward into the ASLs, or even beyond at the lights.

sequence

esmerobbo wrote: »

"Yes but the point is, you're talking about an EXTREMELY isolated incident, especially when compared to the amount of injuries and damaged caused by cars on an annual basis."

The difference being most cars are insured against causing third party damage.

"Well fortunately, we don't make too many laws based on one persons bad experience"

So there has never been more then one?

The point is there are so few of them it isn't worth making laws for. It would be impossible to enforce. Look how many un-insured drivers there are (close to 2 million?), the police struggle to enforce that, what purpose would cycle insurance laws serve.

The fact is that cars cause carnage on our road, but it's become some common we are desensitized to it. If the news were to report every car caused injury with the same enthusiasm as they do when a cyclist hits an elderly ped, youd have every tv channel filled up 24/7 365. But you don't hear about it much, because it's so common it normal, just another car crash.

You hear a lot of news when a cyclist hits and kills ped, because it's so rare in comparison to car accidents.

GillsMan7

esmerobbo wrote: »

"Yes but the point is, you're talking about an EXTREMELY isolated incident, especially when compared to the amount of injuries and damaged caused by cars on an annual basis."

The difference being most cars are insured against causing third party damage.

"Well fortunately, we don't make too many laws based on one persons bad experience"

So there has never been more then one?

Whooooosh. You're still missing the point I'm afraid. Yes, what happened to your mother is sad, but the fact is it's such a rare event. Every now and again someone will cause damage by using a lawnmower, perhaps we should make third-party insurance mandatory for lawnmowers as well?

And, the difference being that most cars are insured against causing third party damage because cars cause infinitely more third party damage than bikes. Infinitely more. Even those who oppose cyclists are aware of this fact.

esmerobbo

I think we will have to agree to disagree, I am however taking about me someone who even has their dog insured against third party risk. I do agree that it would be very difficult to enforce insurance requirements on cyclists. They have enough trouble with motorists. I also agree that most damage caused by cyclists is minor. My Mother being an isolated case!

esmerobbo

GillsMan7 wrote: »

Whooooosh. You're still missing the point I'm afraid. Yes, what happened to your mother is sad, but the fact is it's such a rare event. Every now and again someone will cause damage by using a lawnmower, perhaps we should make third-party insurance mandatory for lawnmowers as well?

And, the difference being that most cars are insured against causing third party damage because cars cause infinitely more third party damage than bikes. Infinitely more. Even those who oppose cyclists are aware of this fact.

I had agreed to disagree whoooosh

But I haven't seen a Lawnmower doing 20mph along a pavement. I have also had to stand the loss when a cyclist hit my parked car.

Strider590

esmerobbo wrote: »

I have also had to stand the loss when a cyclist hit my parked car.

A young child? or a cyclist squashed by a car/van/bus/truck driver?

esmerobbo

Strider590 wrote: »

A young child? or a cyclist squashed by a car/van/bus/truck driver?

Relevance/explanation please?