Cyclists fighting back against oafish drivers

shaun_from_Africa

how about we throw up any scenario that suits your argument?

I suppose that answering like that ensures that you don't need to think up a reasoned argument or actually discuss the comment made.
Are you saying that this sort of scenario is outlandish and never happens? Well, I've seen it happen twice in the past year or so (no major damage either time, but they could have been)

Then arrest the driver for careless driving (along with the cyclist). He/she should have performed an emergency stop, not swerved into pedestrians or other vehicles.

And how about if the car was travelling at under the speed limit and the cyclist simply came out from between 2 parked vehicles, blind drive way etc only 10 or 20 feet in front of the car?

It's attitudes such as this: "Then arrest the driver for careless driving", that give all cyclists a bad name as you have simply stated that the car driver was at fault.
At 30 mph a car will need about 60 feet to stop. Why arrest a driver if a cyclist pulled out when the car was only 30 feet from them?

Azari

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

And how about if the cyclist isn't involved in an actual collision, but is the cause of it by pulling out in front of a car and causing it to swerve thereby hitting another car or pedestrian?

Cyclists and, indeed, pedestrians are liable in such circumstances.

It's just that such situations are so comparatively rare that it is not deemed sensible to require them to be insured against the risk.

adouglasmhor

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

And how about if the cyclist isn't involved in an actual collision, but is the cause of it by pulling out in front of a car and causing it to swerve thereby hitting another car or pedestrian?

And in what case would a cyclist or driver be responsible for that in insurance terms?

adouglasmhor

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I suppose that answering like that ensures that you don't need to think up a reasoned argument or actually discuss the comment made.
Are you saying that this sort of scenario is outlandish and never happens? Well, I've seen it happen twice in the past year or so (no major damage either time, but they could have been)




And how about if the car was travelling at under the speed limit and the cyclist simply came out from between 2 parked vehicles, blind drive way etc only 10 or 20 feet in front of the car?

It's attitudes such as this: "Then arrest the driver for careless driving", that give all cyclists a bad name as you have simply stated that the car driver was at fault.
At 30 mph a car will need about 60 feet to stop. Why arrest a driver if a cyclist pulled out when the car was only 30 feet from them?

Obviously with blind exits etc. 30mph is too fast for the conditions, I narrowly missed a child on foot while driving past parked cars at under 30mph when the little !!!! ran in front of me, I avoided hitting him by about a foot. He stared at me then ran in to the lane of oncoming traffic without looking. If I had been doing 30 I would have hit him, without doubt. If he had not been wearing a light blue cagoule I would not have seen him so fast.

custardy

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I suppose that answering like that ensures that you don't need to think up a reasoned argument or actually discuss the comment made.
Are you saying that this sort of scenario is outlandish and never happens? Well, I've seen it happen twice in the past year or so (no major damage either time, but they could have been)

not at all,but its purely hypothetical
so insert pedestrian
cardboard box
bird
horse
dog

all carry different liabilities and actions.
Its changes nothing of the adversarial nature of many drivers.
feel free to lobby your MP for a retroactive bike registration/insurance/licensing scheme

esuhl

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

And how about if the car was travelling at under the speed limit and the cyclist simply came out from between 2 parked vehicles, blind drive way etc only 10 or 20 feet in front of the car?

That wouldn't change anything...

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

It's attitudes such as this: "Then arrest the driver for careless driving", that give all cyclists a bad name as you have simply stated that the car driver was at fault.

It is not possible for my opinion to "give all cyclists a bad name". I do not represent all cyclists. If a black person commits a street robbery, does that give all black people a bad name for being associated with violent crime? Do you think that such a perceived association would be justified?

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

At 30 mph a car will need about 60 feet to stop. Why arrest a driver if a cyclist pulled out when the car was only 30 feet from them?

Because the driver swerved into pedestrians! That is a pretty dangerous reaction.

shaun_from_Africa

It is not possible for my opinion to "give all cyclists a bad name". I do not represent all cyclists. If a black person commits a street robbery, does that give all black people a bad name for being associated with violent crime?

But if a black person was involved in an incident in which a crime was committed, I wouldn't automatically assume that he/she was guilty and say that they should be arrested.
This is exactly what you stated with regards to a car driver who hit a cyclist.

Then arrest the driver for careless driving

No mentioning of questioning, no mention of an investigation, simply
"arrest the driver".

Do you think that such a perceived association would be justified

No, In the case you give I do not think that the association would be justified, and I also believe that the majority or bike and car users are responsible people, but what I believe and what may be perceived by other people are not the same thing.

I do not represent all cyclists

Again, I agree with your point. You may not represent all cyclists, but as there are not many other cyclists on this thread, your comment is one of the only ones that can be responded to.

Because the driver swerved into pedestrians! That is a pretty dangerous reaction.

The driver may have had a fraction of a second to react, and their choice may have been to definitely hit a child on a bike, or to swerve and possibly hit a pedestrian or other vehicle.

custardy

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Again, I agree with your point. You may not represent all cyclists, but as there are not many other cyclists on this thread, your comment is one of the only ones that can be responded to.

how do you know that?

shaun_from_Africa

how do you know that?

It's not rocket science.
There have been 10 (so far) pages of posts, and having a quick flick through all of them, roughly about 20 or 25 different responders.

From reading the comments posted, I would guess that about half are cyclists/car drivers and half are car drivers only.
This implies that there have been comments from maybe 10 or 12 regular cyclists, and I don't think that this number is very high so my phrase "but as there are not many other cyclists on this thread" is probably correct.

Mrs_Arcanum

I cycle (work cycle scheme & saving money), drive and walk.

One of the biggest dangers to cyclists is not moving vehicles but ones parked at the side of the road. Taxi drivers parked in a rank who blindly open the drivers door without checking are a real menace. :mad:

A friend wearing a bright yellow jacket was thrown clear over the drivers door, breaking her nose & nearly losing an eye. Then only a few weeks later another taxi driver did exactly the same to someone else.